The latest in a dialogue about the Israel lobby theory.
In his response to my criticism Stephen Maher oddly ends up repeating the same leaps of logic that I objected to in the first place. To wit: no one disputes the fact that the US covets Middle Eastern energy resources. The question I asked is how from this fact has he (or the people he is ventriloquising) inferred Israel's strategic value? He offers the standard response that Israel confronted and defeated Arab nationalism on behalf of the US. This would seem a persuasive argument if one were to pick up history from an arbitrary point somewhere in the early 60s. He seems unaware that Nasser, who was seen as an anti-Communist modernizer, was assisted in his ascent to power by the CIA (specifically by Kermit Roosevelt of Operation Ajax fame); and the Arabs, who saw the US as a non-imperial--indeed anti-imperial power--only turned to the Soviet camp after the Eisenhower administration blocked aid to Egypt for the Aswan dam under pressure from the Israel, China, and cotton lobbies. Maher probably hasn't heard of the Lavon Affair either. Arabs only turned against the US as a consequence of its support for Israel. If Israel defeated Arab nationalism, then it was merely vanquishing an enemy of its own creation. It was doing the US no favor. Even Nixon understood this, who in '73 initially refused to support Israel against the Egyptians because he said US was obliged to protect Israel but had no obligation to protect its conquests (the Sinai).
When asked why he misrepresented quotes by Brzezinski and Kennan, Maher says he was merely trying to demonstrate that there is a broad consensus on the strategic importance of Middle East oil to the US (an uncontroversial claim). If there is such a consensus and yet there is none when it comes to how best to secure these resources, it should be obvious that there is no direct correlation between coveting the resources and wanting war. The relevant question then is who pushed for the Iraq war? He does not answer.
Maher's next accuses me of absurdity, only to follow the accusation with a non sequitur. He assumes what he has to prove. He asserts that wherever there's a conflict between US and Israeli interests, the former always prevails. By way of evidence he claims US applied 'severe military sanctions' against Israel in 2004-2005, and cites the earlier instance where US successfuly pressured Israel against dealing with China. (For some odd reason, Maher leaves out the other instance that Noam Chomsky cites as example of Israeli subservience: the 1982 AWACs sales to Saudi Arabia.) It seems Maher is blind to the irony of his own claim. Isn't US support for Israel premised on its status as a 'strategic asset'? For the US to support Israel it isn't necessary that it serve a strategic interest so long as it is not seen as being openly hostile to the said interests. Did he expect the lobby to argue that selling advanced weapons based on US R&D to its chief rival was somehow serving its interests? The AWACs story is even less convincing. Those who trot it out rarely mention that when the sale was first attempted by Carter it was vetoed by Congress. Reagan succeeded only after the Congress imposed humiliating terms. The AWACs planes would only be flown by US pilots, and the accompanying F-15s will have neither long range fuel pods, nor weapons racks. But the context was even more important. Reagan was only able to justify the sale through Bill Casey's help who at the time was encouraging the Saudis to underwrite the proxy war in Afghanistan.
People who point to the military-industrial complex as the chief determinant of policy do have a point. A state of conflict does fill its coffers, even if a war is not always necessary for its profitmaking. It was the alarm over detente that led to the rise of the neoconservatives as a nexus between the Israel lobby and the MIC in the early '70s. And through thinktanks like JINSA and CSP the alliance has since been solidified. However, when their interests come into conflict, once again, the lobby triumphs. In the mid-80s the US lost the biggest arms contract of history -- the Yamamah deal -- when Reagan personally encouraged King Fahd to turn to the Brits instead since he knew he couldn't confront the Congress again after the bruising he took over the AWACs sale. Likewise, in 2007 the sale of $20 billion worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia was only approved after the administration promised a similar amount to Israel (except that the Israelis won't pay, but receive top-drawer weapons). If the 'service' Israel renders is to receive free US weaponry, surely there are plenty of other states which could do the same at far less political cost.
The next claim which is often put forth is that in advancing its interests through a regional proxy the US behavior is no different than it has been elsewhere in the world, such as in Indonesia. But for this argument to be valid, one would have to show that the US behaves in exactly the same manner all over the world where its interests are at stake. Yet we know this is not true. What about states like Oman or Qatar, which actually invited the US to open bases on their soil? What about a state like Uzbekistan, where it did have a base yet left when it was told to? What about a state like Venezuela, where it has none? If there is variance in its behavior, then that means it could be different in I-P too. It becomes pertinent then to ask why US behavior is the way it is in I-P and not the way it is elsewhere. Since US behaves imperially in other places, does that mean we can't say United Fruit pushed for the overthrow of Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala? After all, no leftist shies away from pointing out that the US overthrow of Arbenz was instigated by a powerful non-state actor. But somehow by blaming Middle East policy on the lobby you are giving imperialism a free pass. (It is like saying that by blaming the driver for a hit-and-run you exonerate the car.) Yes, the US has a horrendous imperial record around the world, including invasions, overthrows, destabilization and proxy wars. It backs many authoritarian regimes. However, this does not mean that US policy around the world is uniform. In some places it is imperial without being destructive, in others it is destructive without being imperial. The difference is not insignificant. Had the realists had their way, there would be 1.2 million fewer dead people in Iraq. The US covets resources in many places but that does not automatically translate into imperial aggression. Otherwise won't we have boots on Venezuelan ground by now? No one has challenged US authority and prestige more strongly and more consistently than Hugo Chavez.
A more ludicrous version of these arguments attributes policies in the Middle East to some unitary, coherent entity called 'capital'. One could of course think of 'capital' as a metaphysical concept, which, like God, works in mysterious ways leaving no evidentiary trail. This kind of faith based analysis, removed from politics, history and experience, has the advantage of freeing us from the burden of evidence. One would have thought this subjectless, structuralist approach would have expired with Louis Althusser's strangled wife. Yet it persists in ever more ridiculous forms, mainly, as Tony Judt put it, because it renders their argument 'invulnerable to any criticism of the empirical sort'. In this instrumentalist approach the state has no autonomy whatsoever; it is merely a pliant expression of 'capital'. Of course, no one who has read Marx's astute political analysis in the Eighteenth Brumaire, or is familiar with his concept of Bonapartism (or Gramsci's Caesarism, or Mills's relative autonomy of states), could make such laughable assumptions. Capital of course manifests itself in more tangible forms, such as, say, the Fortune 500. And the interests of the Fortune 500 have been repeatedly thwarted by the lobby, beginning with the passage of the US Israel Free Trade Agreement (which foreshadowed NAFTA). 'Capital' has since lost in excess of $80 billion, and its interests were again frustrated in the confrontation over the Iran Libya Sanctions Act.
Decisions of war and peace are never monocausal. They inevitably involve multiple variables, convergence of interests, and contingent factors. One could therefore say that the Israel lobby is one factor among others. One could however also say that Mt. Everest is one mountain among others.
Debating the lobby-deniers is of course no more edifying than debating the flat earth society. Both show a scrupulous aversion to facts. But this is not a matter of opinion. All these claims are subject to empirical tests. Instead of making insupportable claims, I'd encourage those who deny or downplay the lobby's influence to present facts, offer constative statements, not metaphysical generalizations. Their frequent recourse to straw-man arguments and red herrings leads me to doubt their honesty. Perhaps there's an agenda we should know about? Is it not curious that these supposed defenders of Palestinian rights should insist on seeing Israel as a 'strategic asset' when there are few in US government who share this view (not to mention the millions the lobby has invested since the early '50s trying to promote this view). From George Marshall to Colin Powell, from the Joint Chiefs in 1948 to Gen. Petraeus in 2010: all have agreed that Israel is a strategic liability. Yet these true believers tell us otherwise. Let me ask: if oil is the end, and Israel a mere tool, how is it that every politician is able to rail against 'our dependence on foreign oil', when with a couple of truly honorable exceptions, no one is able to say a critical word about Israel?
Remember the old barstool joke about the 'lyin' eyes'? Well, given a choice between blind dogma and my lyin eyes, I choose the later.
Masterful summary of the dog-wagging that Israel has been allowed to do over the years, that has finally led to the farcical and ominous situation we have today, where Israel brazenly dictates terms to the USA.
The US meanwhile, lowers its head in grateful submission, with its tail, exhausted by so much wagging, hanging limply. A shitty little Levantine country has conquered a great, stupid giant.
If Israel was a strategic ally in any way at all, the Middle East would, long ago, have had its two I/P states, and have been swarming with Israeli business men doing business with the men with the real money.
Instead, you have Netanyahu concentrating the US Mid-East effort on his parochial interests as prime minister of a shitty little Levantine country, and having the gall to try and provoke the US into a war with Iran, which is in no-ones interest. (If the US wants Iranian oil, it can simply buy it, as China does, and as the US does in Venezuela).
Masterful summary
This is good work.
This is good work.
Masterful summary
link to newint.org
Zog ate my Brains
Read this great article which describes Islamo nut cases like Muhammad Idrees Ahmad.
Predictably, Zionist apologists offer nothing but ad hominems and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories in rebuttal to the facts.
Can someone tell me the joke about the barstool and the lyin’ eyes? That’s a new one to me.
Richard Parker says,
The US meanwhile, lowers its head in grateful submission, with its tail, exhausted by so much wagging, hanging limply. A shitty little Levantine country has conquered a great, stupid giant.
Richard, atleast we see the hate monger you are.
Hate is a relatively new word in this context; a coinage (substitute for anti-semite) by Israel to describe anyone who disagrees with them, or who exposes their disgusting behaviour in their tiny little apartheid, but heavily over-subsidised, country.
They are like Lebanese ‘politicians’ (clan chiefs) of my time there, but going ape on suckers’ money.
I know about the $billions poured into Israel by the US, but I wonder why. Just what has that shitty little Levantine country done for the US to deserve it?
I think Mahler’s bigest error is when he premises his argument on the following ‘test’:
>> As I mentioned, if one wants to claim that the influence of the Lobby causes the US to uniquely act against its interests in the Middle East, this uniqueness must be demonstrated.
This is simply not true. By arguing that proponents must somehow show the Israel-US relationship to be “unique” he is saying relationships between the US and other allies differ in kind.
Sure, they differ in kind, but only at the margin. Mostly they differ in degree. The US supported Indonesia during East Timor, the US supports Saudi Arabia now. Both of these relationships would have received support in Congress.
What sets the US-Israel relationship apart is the degree to which the US cowtows to Israel. There is really nothing else like it. And it is wholly disproportionate to the degree to which Israel is useful to US interests.
On a micro basis, one really should read the recent profile of Saban in the New Yorker. The access he was given during the Clinton years and even now is remarkable. (It also is sheds light on Saban: with reference to the Power Rangers, a cartoon that made him rich, he remarks to a friend to whom he is showing his new mansion: “All this from retards in tights!”) Mahler should point to a single example of an advocate for any other country that has more access and influence than Saban.
Another, more general example illustrates the disproportionate degree to which Washington is in thrall to Israel: consider the number of congresspeople who have visitied Israel. Hundreds and hundreds. Each typically on more than one occasion. Now consider how many visit po’ ol’ Canada. Indeed, when was the last time someone from Congress visited Canada? I actually don’t know.
Now, Canada is the US’ largest trading partner. (Yes, it’s true.) On a quotidien basis, we have closer ties to the US than any other country, probably by far. If Congress were pursuing the interests of its constituents, rather than appeasing lobbyists stumping for another country, if they felt inclined to visit another country, don’t you think they’d pop over the border from time to time and say hello? This instead of travelling half way around the world to visit shrines?
Explain that, Mahler.
Nope. It’s not your lying eyes that deceive you, it’s the Lobby together with the best tool they have in their toolbox…Stephen Maher.
Why do I have absolute complete revulsion when I read Stephen Maher pretending to be naive when it comes to the Lobby, which is the single-most reason for protraction of the suffering of Palestinians year in and year out?
Why is it that Americans are for the most part unaware or blind to the scope and depth of the injustice Israel inflicts upon Palestinians? Answer: The Lobby and its control of the message/narrative both in government and the media.
Why is there such a disparity between the attitude Americans have towards Israelis and Palestinians? Answer: The Lobby’s control of the message/narrative and images both in government and the media.
Why do letters sent from the Lobby to Congress often end up as Resolutions or orders to which 80 to 90% of Congress capitulates? The Lobby makes or breaks political careers (does not include the 45 members of Congress who are Jewish most of which are Democrats, as insurance since almost all of these are perhaps more loyal to Israel than the U.S.?) The Lobby fixes it it so that it never comes down to an ultimatum against Israel, since the vast majority of Republicans have been fully funded, initiated and indoctrinated by Aipac (Aipac and its proxies have been wooing Christian Evangelicals for years now) and a large majority of Democrats are Jews and unquestionably loyal to Israel or like the Clintons, in Aipac’s back pocket.
Maher knows perfectly well that the Lobby is the single-most reason why Palestinians do not have justice or a state. The Lobby censors all criticism of Israel, and members of Congress better not even think of sanctioning Israel or pulling funding. It’s unthinkable!
So, the logical conclusion is, that Maher is not naive regarding the Lobby. He’s perfectly aware that there is ample proof of the Lobby’s over-reaching influence in MidEast policy, that the Lobby controls the message so that Israel is always the victim and the Arabs/Palestinians are always portrayed as the aggressor/enemy. He knows that the Lobby stacks all the cards against Palestinians, AND YET, he persists in pretending all this is not so, much to the detriment of Palestinians, since if he really cared about them as he professes he wouldn’t waste so much verbiage on shielding the Lobby from these accusations and from being exposed for exactly what it is: an agent of Israel ensuring that Israel gets its way especially on the issue of the Occupation Industry, and THEREFORE, Stephen Maher is no friend of Palestinians, or his conscience is somewhat bothered but his loyalty to the Jewish Lobby whose agenda is more Zionist than “American” Jewish doesn’t bother him as much as the threat of seeing the Jewish Lobby delegitimized. His loyalty is with someone but not with justice and humanity, which should be our first loyalty always.
“Why do I have absolute complete revulsion when I read Stephen Maher pretending to be naive when it comes to the Lobby,”
I’d say it’s because you’re self-righteous and judgmental–it’s not enough to think Maher is wrong, you have to imagine the absolute worst thing you can about him. He can’t be honestly mistaken–no, in reality he’s a fiend, an enemy, someone who must be utterly discredited, an actual opponent of decency and human rights.
I think the lobby is pretty powerful, but this “logical conclusion” you reach says a lot more about you than it does about Maher.
“He can’t be honestly mistaken–no, in reality he’s a fiend, an enemy, someone who must be utterly discredited, an actual opponent of decency and human rights.”
Please, don’t insult my intelligence. “Honestly mistaken”? Well he sure went to a whole lot of trouble to be “honestly” mistaken!
What can I say? Someone who’s seen the Palestinians’ misery up close and personal and then writes a long diatribe pretending the Lobby is not the number one reason this misery is dragged out and who shields the Lobby from being accused of excessive influence in Congress, again, is NOT a real friend to Palestinians, and he may care about human rights, but in this case the Lobby seems to matter more to him.
And your cheap shot at the end also tells me your argument is nil.
One of the most telling indications of early American influence on foreign countries is their electrical mains system.
Most countries, throughout the world, use 220-230 volts 50Hz, which makes trade in electrical goods a lot easier.
Only the USA, and its dependencies use 110 volts 60Hz.
Countries using those 110 volts 60Hz standards include the USA, plus:
Most American-influenced Caribbean countries
Peru
Panama
South Korea, Philippines (both have big confused messes)
Japan (another big confused mess)
Saudi Arabia
link to en.wikipedia.org
Israel chose 220-230 volts 50Hz, thus bypassing any necessity to import US electrical goods. So you won’t find American white goods in many Israeli stores. Unless they’re made in China, and have probably been fixed.
If the US had any electrical manufacturers left, it would have realised that the rest of the world didn’t want them, long ago, and might have changed.
Saudi Arabia is interesting, because most Americans live in wholly isolated compounds (a little bit like Israeli settlements) and are supplied from home. The rest of the Saudis (9 million, apart from the overstuffed princes) can go fuck themselves.
Try finding a Robertson-head screw or driver in the good ‘ol USA. Or an electric kettle, LOL!
Is Mr. Idrees the same person that Maher had criticized in a previous article and accused him of name-calling and stooping too low, or some such claim?
Anyway, the article above is thorough and comprehensive. Being familiar with the details of the United States’ relationship with Egypt during and after the Nasser era, I was waiting for Mr. Idrees to mention the point about the Aswan Dam, and much to my delight he did. That tells me he knows what he’s talking about.
Maher’s explanations, however, betray a lack of intimate knowledge with the history/events in the region. He speaks in general terms and his argument is – for a lack of a better phrase – all over the place. It just doesn’t hold water.
Is Maher on a scholarship or did he receive some kind of grant?
Finkelstein is pretty insistent about the reach of the Lobby, saying it goes only so far as allowing the mistreatment of Palestinians, and that the rest is indeed the dog wagging the tail.
Is he just wrong on his facts? It’s an aspect of him I have a hard time understanding. Same for Chomsky. They never explain, for example, the behavior of Congress. They restrict it to policymakers in the administrations.
There is no question that The Lobby controls Congress and through Congress the Administration. But what does that tell us? Only that other (and bigger) BIGs (BIG ARMAMENTS, BIG OIL, BIG BANKS, so many of them) either agree with The Lobby or disagree so mildly that they make no fuss.
Imagine if several big corporations (or whole industries) really believed, and believed strongly, that USA support for Israel harmed them. There’d be contention and Congress might move off top-dead-center. But of all the propositions that are unproved (and, indeed, usually not even stated), the proposition that one or more BIGs (other than The Lobby) care to oppose US policy for Israel is the most unproved (and unstated). If someone could show proof of any major US industry which was suffering, and knew it was suffering, because of USA support for Israel, then there’d be something to talk about.
It’s like primary elections: no-one votes except the most committed. The big corporations either don’t care about Israel or care about it as strongly as The Lobby does. Or agree with the Lobby, perhaps influenced by pro-Israel CEOs and such.
I have advanced the theory elsewhere that the BIGs who direct USA policy are a terrible danger because they don’t look at the whole picture and don’t take a long view. But they are very, very good at what they do, and what they do is control the USA government by spending money where it counts. They may be making a mistake. It may, in fact, matter even to them, and in a negative way, the way The Lobby drives the USA. But they don’t see it and don’t oppose it.
The bottom line is — they don’t oppose it. You’ve seen the marches in Washington. Just people. Meaningless. You don’t see a march of corporate lobbyists descending on Washington asking Congress to jettison Israel. that is the bottom line. This is the USA.
The BIG BANKS may have purchased themselves an insurance policy (the “too big to fail” insurance policy) but the USA has no such policy and the BIGs don’t know that because they have short-term goals and no big-picture (and no devotion to any sort of “public good”).
Otherwise won’t we have boots on Venezuelan ground by now?
Not necessarily. Venezuela is meant to be a beneficiary of “soft” diplomacy among her neighbours: bribery, extortion, para-military murders quickly hushed up, “free” trade. The same strategy prevails as elsewhere: divide and rule.
Idrees writes: “The US covets resources in many places but that does not automatically translate into imperial aggression. Otherwise won’t we have boots on Venezuelan ground by now? No one has challenged US authority and prestige more strongly and more consistently than Hugo Chavez”
Ummm, did he miss the fact that in April 2002, the USA aided and back a coup against Chavez? The coup failed after two days, but it doesn’t change the fact that the US decided to go after Chavez and try to put “boots on the ground”.
opps, just to clarify that – they tried to put “boots on the ground” via their lackies in the Venezuelan ruling class and their lackies in the Venezuelan military. William Blum outlines the role of the US in the 2002 coup
link to killinghope.org
If it was all about oil, we’d have boots on the ground in Venezuela…
Venezuela doesn’t have the last oil left on the planet, as the gulf will have as everybody else runs dry and the white knuckle ride starts.
Saudia Araba bankrolled the US assault on Iraq in 1991 .It cost the kingdom 30 billion. It always charges US 1 dollar less per barrel of oil than what it charges to the rest of the world and that is from 1975. US helps it stifle dissent within the country and turns blind eye to its Jehadi philosophy that it brings to other countries including in Checheny and Pakistan. On balance Saudia Arab was not helped but was made dependent on US whims.That countrty even until 1990s did not have realtion with Russia and China! US uses that country.
Indoneisa did not force US to declare war/sanction on Portugal /Holland for the later’s suport to East Timor.Indonesia sold its polotical-militray-industrial complex to the service of US need enriching oligarchs .It killed thousands of its own people.It allowed IMF’s disastrous policy in 1998 .US was not there when it felt its geographical integrity is at stake in 1999.US listened to the outrage the rest of the world mounted against Indonesia.
Tawain lobby did not ask or force US congress to satrt sanction on Soviet or Non Aligned nationms for dealing with China. Neither they nor Indonesia nor Pakaistan nor Saudia Arabaia nor Morroco ever wrote position paper for the Congress on their respective problems with the neighbors.Nor they met individually with every fresh Congress member routinely for last 40 years to imapart their version/accounts of the events and made them appear to local and national events of AIPAC-like body.None of these countires have been mentioned as a major threat by FBI as espionage risk.
US has supported IRA against Britan.US has supported UK over Argentina in 1982 and has changed its potion on Falklands in 2010. When national interest is at stake US has gone against its allies but never against Israel 32 billion dollars as freebies in military for Isarel but UAE and Saudi have to pay for a threat that does not exist ( vs Iran ) { then Schumer goes on Congress and thunders of withholding the delivery unless Saudi arab decreases oil price}and now another 250 millions dollars to protect against HAMAS’s Missile!!
America’s another friend ( door mat ) Pakistan destroys its own society to fight a cold war and pays for F 16 but does no get it t delivered , still ends up paying the rental money !
American Cuban another lobby. But US once occupied that country. Once felt threatend by rise of communism and spread of missile. Still US has never forced another country to press sanction against Cuba.Neither has US attcaked another Latin American or Asian or African country for carrying business with Cuba. Neither has it armed Cuban-American with nukes/F 16 or other technologies to satrt a war against Cuba.
How many are out there in our military or administartion from these countries who once served in the administartion/miitary of foreign countries like Taiwan/Indonesia/pakistan/Saudi arab/Morocco/UK/Ireland as a citizen ?
I side more with Maher than others. I do think the lobby does have an influence on Congress, on academia, on the media (smear campaigns aimed at silencing dissent). I think US support for Israel, even if perceived as valuable to elite sectors, to be moral reprehensible given Israel’s horrific crimes against humanity.
I find AIPAC to be powerful compared to other lobbys, but not all-powerful. I do not believe if elite sectors of society widely believed Israel to threaten US hegemony, threaten capital interests, and so on, they would not be able to stop it.
But, honestly, at this point I am more interested in trying to figure out why there is so much vitriol toward Maher. I find it really perplexing and a little disheartening.
Some thoughts:
1) Even if one vehemently disagrees with his viewpoint–and it’s clear many do– it hardly seems valid to essentially accuse him of intellectual fraud, as Muhammad Idrees Ahmad does. For example, the idea that he is “ventriloquising” the work of others is unfair. There is a limited amount of left critiques of the lobby theory. So he agrees with Chomksy on this, should he refrain from using some of the examples Chomsky does for some reason? There are only a few critiques of the lobby from this perspective, and in fact, it makes sense there would be agreements among those that favor the “imperial interests” argument to have similar arguments.
It is not sinister to use some of the same arguments as others– if they are persuasive in the eyes of the author, it only makes sense he would use them. Maher did not commit plagarism and the insinuation that he did is unfair. Ahmad, is your argument lacking an thought or fact that has been argued by others in the past?
I make arguments in favor of single-payer healthcare, ending wars, cutting the military budget, ending financial, diplomatic and military support for Israel and so on. And, as one might expect, there is a great deal of repetition in the arguments made for these issues, always has been and always will.
2.) Ahmad argues that “there are few in US government who share this view.” Have you done polling on this? How do you know? You do accurately cite some who do not share the view not, but you cannot say definitely that it is the overwhelming consensus among US policymakers. Alex Haig once said, “Former Secretary of State, General Alexander Haig, a former Supreme Commander of NATO, refers to Israel as “the largest, most battle-tested and cost-effective US aircraft carrier, which does not require a single US personnel, cannot be sunk and is located at a most critical area for US national security interests.”
Here 50 former generals wrote a letter to Obama sharing a similar view. link to jinsa.org
Again, to me support for Israel is bad for humanity. Maybe it is bad for US interests, but many US state planners disagree. Whether one agrees with him or not, is it all that hard to fathom that there may be disagreement among policy makers as to the strategic value of Israel.
I think Ahmad’s response to Maher would be better if he didn’t so aggressively attach Maher’s integrity, even going so far as (on Pulse) to suggest he was not worth responding too (although he responded quite a bit) as he is such a “lightweight.” So you disagree with his essay – OK then? I am eager to hear your views, but to act as though he is beneath you, morally and intellectually is really strange.
There is widespread disagreements on a whole host of issues among well-meaning, smart people and the fact that he does not find the Lobby thesis to be convincing, does not make him some intellectual fraud. I would be curious if you could point to one critique of the lobby theory–a specific essay–that you don’t find contemptible.
And, of course, you must also think ei are also intellectual lightweights; for if this piece was obviously horrific and stolen as you claim, would not the editors there have noticed it. I guess you are smarter than them as well.
It is also entirely unfair to say, Maher ” misrepresented quotes,” when he did not. Nowhere did Maher claim that those quoted as saying middle east oil is important, supported the Iraq war, or specifically view Israel as a strategic asset. One can argue that oil is of crucial strategic importance for foreign policy and still oppose the War in Iraq, for a number of reasons. Likewise, one can think oil is the major driver of US foreign policy and yet reason that the backlash the US gets from support for Israel is of greater consequence.
Who pushed for the Iraq war? Well, yes the neoconservatives did. But to say oil was not a factor, or totally dwarfed by the lobby is, at best, questionable. Cheney once said, “The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest costs, is still where the ultimate prize lies.”
The US was not adamant about regime change until the late 1990s and early 2000s by, what British historian Charles Tripp called, “Iraq’s reemergence as a major oil producer and regional economic power.” By the early 2000s Iraq was producing an estimated 2.8 mill barrels of oil per day and exporting 1.7 barrels per day under, bringing in some $12 billion in annual revenue, making it a “hub of regional trade,” and putting Iraq “on the verge of international rehabilitation.” The problem for US policy makers was that rivals like “Russia and China could not resist a piece of the Iraq market.”” These rivals were increasing their cooperation with Iraq on oil deals, in effect assuming greater control of one some of the most strategically important resources on the planet. When the US invaded Iraq and toppled the Iraqi regime in 2003, oil contracts between Iraq and US economic rivals were made null and void.
The point I want to make, mostly, is not that the lobby is the driver of foreign policy, or not, so much as that the debate is not over, and Maher’s critique is valuable. You are not so unambigiosuly right, and others so unambiguously wrong. Those who disagree with the Lobby thesis are not akin tothe 9-11 Truthers, or Global Warming denialists, or the “Flat Earthy Society.” That is beyond hyperbolic.
Ahmad, you do make some interesting point, but they are lost amidst the attacks. You seem to take Maher’s opinion so personally. Maher is someone who disagrees with you, not some piece-of-shit “lightweight.” If he is so pathetic and small, why have you responded with such length and fervor? You could have written a critique of his points without personal attacks and it would have been much more valuable, I think.
The worst accusation, however, comes from Kalithea, who literally argues that Maher “knows that the Lobby stacks all the cards against Palestinians, AND YET, he persists in pretending all this is not so, much to the detriment of Palestinians.” How in the hell are you able to conclude that? That is totally unsubstantiated, presumptuous and literally implies that you have magical powers to know what Maher thinks and know his motives. That all of his critisism of Israel is a charade, of course, so he can be a more effective covert defender of AIPAC.
I find it laughable that between a) Maher is working on BEHALF of the lobby and wants to empower the lobby and hurt the Palestineans by writing essays; or B) happens to disagree with the lobby thesis, as he claims, and thinks the US operates its foreign policy in its own interests; that anybody could honestly presume the the former.
1-”50 former generals ‘ arguments were staright out of isareli playbook.It was not argument .It was statement.
Occupying oilfileds were israeli fantasy from the begining
1-”“Without intervention there is a distinct possibility of an economic and political disaster bearing … resemblance to the disaster of 1930s…The Arab shoreline of the Gulf is a new El Dorado waiting for its conquistadors.” 1975, Robert Tucker in Commentary magazine.
2-”potential targets for the US included Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Venezuela, Libya, and Nigeria. “Analysis indicates … [that military forces of OPEC countries were] quantitatively and qualitatively inferior [and] could be swiftly crushed.” -August 1975,Report by Committee on Foreign Relations, another Israel centric organization.
3- “Taking Saudi Out Of Arabia” the PowerPoint presentation states “Saudi Arabia the strategic pivot” and declared that the Kingdom is an enemy of the USA.-, 2002, RAND Corporation’s Laurent Murawiec in a presentation to the Defense Policy Board .Saudi Arabia was declared as the “kernel of evil, the prime mover, the most dangerous opponent” in the Middle East. Murawiec claimed, “Since independence, wars have been the principal output of the Arab world” and that “plot, riot, murder, coup are the only available means to bring about change…Violence is politics, politics is violence. This culture of violence is the prime enabler of terrorism. “.
link to irmep.org
From -
Michael Moore and Richard Perle Combine Forces:
Who Really Wants to Invade Saudi Arabia, and Why?
By Tanya C. Hsu
Senior Political Analyst & Director of Program Development
Institute for Research: Middle East Policy
The arguments that a sizable number of people in administartion or academia are supporters of US policy on Israel fall apart when we discern that a lot of those appointmnets have been engineered by israel to begin with and those who oppose Israeli policy have been barred from holding the office. Inam was silenced fro being critical of israel.
Clinton has to get rid of 2 Arab American for they were Arab American. Chase Freeman faced the consequences last year. Obaman’s friend Khalidi has disappeared . One middle east souinding name from Detroit was dropped from Obama camapign for he was a muslim!There is not a single muslim or Arab -American in US administartion on any role involving Middle East .There is no Iranian that US seeks advice to on Iran unless he or she is tied to MEK or ex Shah.
Richard Perle,David Wurmser,Meyrav Wurmser ,,Laurent Murawiec,Abrams, Feith,Wolfowitz, Indyk, Ross, Krystal, did not earn their place out of competition and fair process.They knew one another and they found their common zeal and ethnicity. once one of them managed to get a foothold they brought their relatives and friends and they wrought havoc!
“Boeing, Exxon Say New Iran Sanctions Would Hurt Sales’
“We are up on Capitol Hill talking about the collateral damage,” William Reinsch, president of the National Foreign Trade Council.
For U.S. companies, “virtually any transaction with foreign entities doing business related to the Iranian petroleum sector could be prohibited,” the National Association of Manufacturers said in a study that estimated the potential loss of $25 billion in exports. ”
“We know we can’t stop this bill,” Wenk( Chamber of Commerce) said in an interview. “But the provisions go far beyond Iran. There are some real unintended consequences.” –www.bloomberg.com
US does not benfit from the sanctioning Iran.
I’ll give the link to the article :
link to preview.bloomberg.com
Again, like most, you’re conflating “US interests” with Boeing and Exxon, you have to be careful there. Boeing, Exxon, Bechtel, etc. act in their own interests, not in he interests of the American people, and that is part of the point that Maher was making, some don’t seem to understand that…
The argument has nothing to do with whether or not “the Lobby” is a nefarious institution – the argument is over how much it influences American foreign policy. Mr. Ahmad makes an excellent case.
So how does interst of Boeing hurt interest of US public or administartion? Who gets to decide that? Is there any public discussion? Or is it written by AIPAC for the congress to be followed to the letter? Thats what AIPAC did .They wrote Iran accountability Act.They had writeen earlier Libya-Iran and Syria Accountability Acts.
There is one more showing the buisness community( like oil industry who did not want Iraq invasion but was cited conveniently by war mongers as reason to disguise thier role)-
SACRAMENTO, Calif.—Nearly 300 insurers have refused to agree to a moratorium on investments in companies that the California insurance commissioner says do business with Iran, the state agency said. -California Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner asked California-licensed insurers to eliminate investments in those companies ( 50 companies that he said do business with the Iranian oil, natural gas, nuclear and defense sectors)
and pledge by April 2 to avoid such investments in the future.-
Mr. Poizner, who is running in the Republican primary for governor, ”
link to businessinsurance.com
There lies the problem. He has to earn the dollars for election! He has to sound tough on TV and radio and be accecpted by the Tink tank as a reasonable candidate.
“Is there any public discussion?”
Exactly, and I agree that that is a big part of the problem, no one knows exactly what is going on.
“There lies the problem. He has to earn the dollars for election!”
So we’re saying, to simplify, that American politicians and members of congress put their own careers and pocket-lining above human rights, justice, or even the American people ; this is not really new. The problem is that if some of them stand up to it, they will just be replaced by another…
I’d like to see a detailed study (may already exist) of exactly where campaign funding comes from, and to whom, I haven’t looked it up.
Stepehen Maher’s assertion of Isareli role in safeguarding US interest does not look into another set of possibility that could have happened had US followed a more normal course of judgements and decisions. US could not, as the State Department and Marshall and Truman himself found out in Truman departmnet since there was no “Arab constituency” and election campaign money and there would be no electoral fallout from supporting Israel
.European power for a longtime managed to exploit resources of Asia/Africa/latin America without ever creating “an ally like Israel” in the midst!
-
Stepehen Maher’s assertion “The overwhelming firepower provided to Israel, which is aggressively used against any who challenge the established order, has played a central role in maintaining US control of the region, ” has a wider application in understanding anti-semitism.
B Nethannyaho , father of current Prime minister of Israel has accidentally hit the nail on the head in his mammoth book on inquistion ascribing the the reason of hatred and animosity of the ruled against the ruler( and the ruling class including against the Jews ) who used Jewish military and administartive skill in keeping the local subjugated.He found the association had come from Jewish longing to be accepted as equal to the ruling class and to the elite of the society.In addition of this symbiotic existence , there waere innumberable devlopments when Jewish society had switched allegiance overnigt to the invading army betraying the mother country.
In more recent times we have seen Israel moving from Europe to US after 1956 fiasco when European power failed to conquer Suez.That aggressive plicy proved fruitful in 1967 during John administartion.Even before that during WW2 Jewsih elite understood that effective power had shifted to USA and started hurting British interst when that suited them.
The answer is that the strongest Israel supporters in America are the Evangelical Christians.
They don’t care about oil. They aren’t particularly aware about U.S. national security issues. They don’t care about Arab nationalism. They are anti-communist, but that’s just knee-jerk and, here, irrelevant. They are against the idea that Muslims would control Israel. They are not influenced by the Israel lobby.
The god of the Evangelical Christians walked the Earth, and did so on the soil which is now surrounded by the political border of modern I-P.
It’s completely irrational, but, as “The Jesus Factor” Frontline PBS episode shows, appealing to them is sufficient to win the White House.
“Israel is being “delegitimised and demonised” by misinformed British public opinion, the country’s ambassador to the UK has claimed.
Ron Prosor told The Times that there was a discrepancy between the Westminster government’s treatment of Israel and the position adopted by members of the public, media and universities which, he argued, could result in suppression of balanced discussion.
“Sometimes we feel people from the outside are pointing fingers at us instead of giving us a big hug, which is what we need in this region,” Mr Prosor said. “We are the only democracy in this region and the challenges we have against us are enormous. People are not aware of that — or not enough aware of that.
“I think governments are more aware of the challenges — and the relations between governments are very, very strong — but I am afraid because there is a gap between the Government and the public opinion this will, at the end of the day, go against Israel in the long term.”
Times Online May 5, 2010
The British public are demonising Israel, ambassador says.link to timesonline.co.uk
This is my understanding.It is Israel that is not trying to understand why public is showing anger (? Antisemitism) at Israel.Instead it is resorting to usual tirade .It is alos adopting the same failed strategy( father of current Prime Minister of Israel has mentioned in his book on Inquisition ) of relying on the ruling classes.