Since its founding in 2001, The Electronic Intifada has earned a well-deserved reputation for being the most influential and effective voice for Palestinian rights. It is backed by a team of smart, savvy and committed individuals. Its co-founder Ali Abunimah is in my view an examplar of what Antonio Gramsci called an 'organic intellectual', successfuly fusing political action with theoretical rigrour. I have therefore been a long time supporter of the project, occasionally contributing articles and reviews. However, at the moment I am terribly disappointed. Presently on its front page EI runs a ludicrous attack on John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt’s work — work that has been pivotal in shifting the debate on US Middle East policy. I find it pointless to respond to the author who has freely purloined others’ work, misused sources, and constructed a slipshod argument. But I’ll give two illustrative examples of the deliberate distoritions that keep resurfacing in these ideological assaults on M & W (in both cases the specific claims have been ‘borrowed’ from Noam Chomsky):
Chomsky has long maintained that the war in Iraq was for oil. He always adduces the same evidence to support his case. A State Department document from 1945, a quote from Zbigniew Brzezinski and another from George Kennan. Chomsky argues that Middle East oil is ‘a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history’ (State Department), and anyone who controls Iraq’s vast oil reserves gains ‘critical leverage’ (Brzezinski), indeed ‘veto power’ (Kennan), over competitors. All of this is indisputable: the United States would no doubt like to control Iraqi oil; it recognizes the ‘critical leverage’ the control affords it; and the critical leverage no doubt would grant it ‘veto power’. Now here is the problem: The State Department document Chomsky cites is about Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. And it recommends that, precisely because Saudi oil is so important, US must maintain friendly relations with the kingdom. Also, it does not follow that regime change is the only means to achieve these goals. Indeed, all of these claims have been just as true the past half century, but they did not necessitate war. The US has long preferred shoring up authoritarian regimes which could ensure its dominance and maintain a stable flow of oil.
Secondly, The Iraqi government was not withholding its oil; it was the US-led sanctions that were preventing it from reaching the markets. There is no evidence that Iraq was unwilling to cede control of its oil to the United States. Indeed, in the months leading up to war Saddam Hussein’s government made several attempts to stave off war by offering the United States exclusive concessions to its oil reserves. (Iraq's increasingly desperate attempts to avert war by offering all kinds of inducements in the lead up to war are well documented by Seymour Hersh, Ron Suskind, James Risen, and Stephen Sniegoski among others). If oil was indeed the motivation, then one would expect plentiful evidence of oil interests influencing policy, or their role in selling the war. Chomsky offers none. Nor does he inform readers that Zbigniew Brzezinski, the man whose words he cites as evidence of Iraq as a resource war, was one of its most vocal opponents. Bzrezinski has called the war ‘a historic, strategic, and moral calamity…driven by Manichean impulses and imperial hubris’.
Also untenable is the view that Israel serves as a 'strategic asset' because it keeps watch over the region's resources for the US. It seems like a very curious argument to make considering that US commercial interests and the Israel lobby's aims have frequently been at odds, and the conflicts have almost invariably been resolved in favour of the lobby (e.g., the US-Israel Free Trade Agreement, or the Iran Libya Sanctions Act). In his peculiar reading of Brzezinski, Chomsky ascribes to him a view that is an inversion of what he actually says. Brzezinski saw Iraq as an unnecessary war waged by pro-Israel neonconservatives, and in the very passage from which Chomsky picks his quote, he rejects the notion that Israel serves a strategic interest. He writes:
American and Israeli interests in the region are not entirely congruent. America has major strategic and economic interests in the Middle East that are dictated by the region’s vast energy supplies. Not only does America benefit economically from the relatively low costs of Middle Eastern oil, but America’s security role in the region gives it indirect but politically critical leverage on the European and Asian economies that are also dependent on energy exports from the region. Hence good relations with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates…is in the U.S. national interest. From Israel’s standpoint, however, the resulting American-Arab ties are disadvantageous: they not only limit the degree to which the United States is prepared to back Israel’s territorial aspirations, they also stimulate American sensitivity to Arab grievances against Israel. (my emphasis)
Since the scrivener writing on EI reproduces Chomsky’s exact interpretation of the ‘critical leverage’ quote, it is clear that he has never consulted the original article. But what of Kennan? Surely the late grand strategist must have been thrilled by the prospect of war which would finally secure the 'veto power' he pined for? Not quite. Shortly before the war started, the nonogenarian architect of the 'containment' policy, and author of the infamous 'X Article' spoke to Albert Eisele of The Hill. He called the escalation against Iraq a distraction from the war on terror, he defended the record of the UN weapons inspectors, called the alleged Iraq-al-Qaida link 'pathetically unsupportive and unreliable', and denounced the Democrats failure to confront Bush on the war as 'shabby and shameful', blaming it on 'timidity out of concern for the elections'. Tellingly, according to Eisele, Kennan
Insisted that there is no evidence that Iraq has succeeded in developing nuclear weaponry, and even if they had, it would be targeted on Israel and not the United States;Said the Israelis almost certainly possess nuclear weapons, and would be “quite capable of mounting a devastating retaliatory strike” if Iraq ever uses weapons of mass destruction against Israel
The EI contributor similarly introduces a second distortion, related to the notion that Israel serves as an offshore base for the US. Noam Chomsky and Stephen Zunes have borrowed this description from Alexander Haig who called Israel 'America’s largest aircraft carrier which never could be sunk'. However, they elide the context: As Patrick Tyler has shown in his excellent book A World of Trouble (see my review) Haig would frequently leverage Israel lobby power in his bureaucratic struggle against Reagan (whom he saw as an intellectual inferior). Tyler reveals in detail the lengths Haig would go to undercut Reagan with Israeli assistance.
But, so long as the decontextualized quotes fit preconceived notions it probably doesn't matter what was actually said or done, I suppose. The French sociologist Emile Durkheim called this the ‘ideological method’: the use of ‘notions to govern the collation of facts, rather than deriving notions from them’. In the a-historical writings of the analysts-on-the-cheap who have rushed to attack M&W, two and two usually adds up to twenty-two. There is no correlation between US support for Israel and its known interests in the region's energy reserves. As I explained elsewhere,
United States Middle East policy has been defined since World War II by the tension between two competing concerns: the strategic interests which require good relations with Arab-Muslim states, and domestic political imperatives which demand unquestioning allegiance to Israel. That the US interest in the region’s energy resources has remained consistent, as well as its support for Israel, leads some to conclude that somehow the two are complementary. They aren’t. US President Harry S. Truman recognized the state of Israel the day of its founding over the strenuous objections of his State Department in order to court the Jewish vote and, more significantly, Jewish money for his re-election campaign. Every president since — with the exception of Lyndon Johnson and George W. Bush, who saw no cause to feign balance — has sought to address this tension with attempts to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. All these efforts have so far foundered. A study of US policy in the region over the decades, then, is inevitably a study of the causes of these failures [among which the Israel lobby looms largest].
I hope EI is able to put this embarassing episode behind it and shows more discernment in what it choses to publish in the future.
Idrees Ahmad is a co-founder of Pulse media.
Pingback: Tweets that mention ‘Special relationship’ has only threatened the ’stable flow of oil’ -- Topsy.com
Saddam wanted to trade with US companies. US oil companies were actually lobbying to trade with Saddam.
link to nytimes.com
AIPAC, and other pro-Israeli people made the Iran sanction happen in the mid nineties when US companies were Irans biggest trading partner by far. Oil companies were not happy about this.
Chomsky gets more odd when he sites Brzezinski, since Brzezinski very, very strongly condemns both the Iran and Iraq actions and is a big supporter of Mearsheimer and Walt’s Lobby work.
Chomsky makes some large efforts to ignore the neoconservatives and the pro-Israeli elements in US government, but it doesnt hold up under light scrutiny.
Good observation.
Muhammad, you are also going to want to follow up on how this notion of “critical leverage” fails when the fungible oil markets are taken into account.
link to mondoweiss.net
link to mondoweiss.net
RE: ‘Special relationship’
Petition to End House Demolitions Now!
To President Obama, Secretary Clinton, Special Envoy Mitchell:
We urge you to use the power of your offices to end the demolition of Palestinian homes in the Israeli Occupied Territories….
MORE INFO AND TO SIGN - link to enddemolitionsnow.org
P.S. EndDemolitionsNow.org is a project of ICAHD-USA, ICAHD Israel, & ICAHD UK.
ICAHD Israel [Jeff Halper's org.] – link to icahd.org
ICAHD-USA – link to icahdusa.org
Idrees, this is a great article. Thanks for doing the digging to get at the sources. Analysts-on-the-cheap (loved that whole sentence about 2+2=22) take credit for creating faux-cement foundations until someone like you comes along and with a couple of scratches, shows it’s papier-mache.
This is just illogical. Chomsky explicitly cited those people to show US policy elites understood the importance of control of the oil spigot, even the most liberal ones. He did not and does not cite them about what particular strategies they preferred to achieve this goal, but to show that US policy elites do consider it an important goal.
Insinuating it is somehow dishonest to cite them as evidence of the perceived importance in policy making circles of controlling the spigot because they personally happened to propose different strategies than other policy elites is absurd.
It is intellectually dishonest to cite sources in which it is implied that the source agrees with the writer, in this instance, Chomsky, when the exact opposite is true. But since Chomsky has a long history of distorting US-Israel relations in order to portray Israel as a client state, America’s “cop on the beat,” which it never has been, such distortions as well as serious omissions are necessary. But not acceptable.
I’ve noticed for some years that Chomsky is really great at digging out the skeletons in the Israeli closet, but has a one-track view of what it is in the US that causes our government to so slavishly support it. He doesn’t want to credit the lobby and subscribes to the view that Israel is an asset of the corporate economic powers. On this Walt, Mearsheimer, and Chas Freeman are more accurate.
However I would caution about Muhammed’s response. I am shaped by my regular study of aviation accidents. No disaster happens because of one thing alone. The average airplane crash happens because at least seven things go wrong at the same time or in sequence. Take just one of them away and there’s a chance a given crash would not have happened.
So consider the idea that every reason ever imagined or expressed for supporting the war in Iraq or the blank welfare check to Israel is ultimately a link in the disaster chain. If fundamentalist Armageddonist Christians believe supporting Israel will hasten the return of Jesus then that becomes a real reason for US support. (We could quibble about whether that amounts to a ten for forty percent contribution to the problem). I can come up with another seven reasons and probably more if you give me time.
A student did some research and discovered a total of twenty three reasons given by various columnists and politicians for supporting the Iraq war before it happened and two more afterwards. All twenty five are ultimately reasons for the war.
So Muhammed and the Chomskyists are both correct that their pet theories are reasons for these human disasters. They both are wrong in believing that they are the only reasons.
I agree with homingpigeon.
I also agree with homing pigeon. When people get into political arguments about the “real” reasons for some war or other policy, they often seem to think it has to be monocausal and it’s all or nothing. Either it was because of oil or oil had nothing to do with it. Either it was entirely because of the Israel lobby or the lobby had nothing to do with it.
You can usually find some evidence to show that cause X had something to do with effect Y and you can also find evidence that cause X was not the only factor involved, so both sides go away convinced that they have proven their case.
homingpigeon wrote:
According to Dimitri Simes, Trotskyite Bolshevik/neocons may have preceded Christian fundamentalist Armageddonists. Said Simes in a roundtable discussion with Jacob Heilbrunn of Heilbrunn’s book on the neocons, “They Knew they were Right,”
It’s well known that the invasion of Iraq was underwritten by a convergence of interests, from the president down to the corporate crony. That is usually the case. That is why the US government and its built-in bureaucratic structure is good at waging war, and coordinating it, but fails at providing its citizens with the most basic of services. Why? Because in the former there is a convergence of interests, whereas in the latter said interests tend to clash. It’s a generalization, to an extent, but the basic idea holds true across the board.
The “hegemony” as a strategic goal — I argued against that some days ago, towards thr-eee re Chas Freeman here. Clearly thr-eee had read EI too, using his new word ”hegemony”. How fast he jumped on this wagon!
Israel is not a strategic asset for the US.
I’m so glad to see Idrees posting here.
The no bullshit straight facts approach at Pulse is a welcome relief from the fence sitting approach taken by many other “left” outlets.
Don’t you know oil is “fungible?” LOL These are the “arguments” I faced here, with an entire wrecking crew trying to call me a Chomskyite.
“Secondly, The Iraqi government was not withholding its oil; it was the US-led sanctions that were preventing it from reaching the markets.”
The attack on Iraq was purely for the purposes of control, or to remain a player in the area via force.
“He called the escalation against Iraq a distraction from the war on terror…” There is no war on terror, there is just getting the war on to move the military hardware and designs on control.
While I do not attack M&W in regard to some of their lobby observations, or even their analysis of the IP conflict, they leave a lot to be desired in regard to their view of “American interest” in the region. You would think when reading some of their reports that there is no design which is less than desirable for the ME, or that America is some bumbling stumbling idiot trying to do good. Or that the idea of domestic elites with designs is something entirely new – gimme a break.
I will have to further examine the EI article.
I don’t think the argument is that America has no interests in the Middle East. In fact the United States has huge strategic interests in the region.
However, what Walt and Meirsheimer disagree with Chomsky on is on whether or not Israel is a useful tool in maintaining American hegemony.
Neocons, Zionists, and Chomskyites all argue that Israel is a useful and essential ingredient in American imperialism in the ME region.
Chomsky also argues that the war on Iraq was largely over oil, despite the fact that the United States has shown over and over again that it can obtain oil from Arab countries without resorting to violence.
Our relationships with the UAE, SA, Kuwait, and several other major oil producers in the region don’t involve us physically occupying their countries or killing hundreds of thousands of their civilians to obtain their oil.
Its been reasonably argued that we could have obtained Iraqi oil without invading Iraq, that we could have turned Iraq into an ally against Iran, and that this entire fiasco had very little to do with American interests.
Its all been very well documented that the biggest pushers for the Iraq war were those Americans connected to the neocon narrative and AIPAC.
I think having a constructive debate on this topic would be far more useful than just simply going back to our kneejerk reactions in regard to this topic.
I myself am willing to play devils advocate on the topic.
For example, it can be reasonably argued that the US had a strategic interest in destroying Iraq largely because Iraq unlike SA, Kuwait, Qatar, and the UAE had a somewhat competent military, an industrial base, a largely educated population, a well developed infrastructure, and a relatively large population, and an agricultural base.
Iraq, unlike many of the other Gulf oil sheikhdoms was capable of self-suffiency.
This is further compounded by the fact that unlike SA for example, Iraq has a long history of not fully adhering to the dictats of the United States.
Thus invading Iraq and militarily occupying the country was necessary to ensure that Iraq would fully behave.
Nonetheless, I still do subscribe to the belief that we could have obtained Iraqi oil in a far more pragmatic fashion.
“Nonetheless, I still do subscribe to the belief that we could have obtained Iraqi oil in a far more pragmatic fashion.
Do we need Iraqui oil?
And why should we get it by not paying the same price as everybody else?
Lareineblanche,
Personally, given the evidence I’ve seen, I don’t believe we need Iraqi oil to fulfill our domestic needs. In fact I believe that our current oil needs can be supplied by our own domestic output and by other countries in our own hemisphere.
However, there are many who believe that obtaining Iraqi oil for our own use prevents other regional powers from obtaining Iraqi oil and thus the United States can use Iraqi oil as a form of leverage in international relations.
Nonetheless, I do not believe that the United States invaded Iraq primarily because we wanted Iraqi oil. I view the invasion of Iraq as a retarded policy decision that was heavily pushed by those harboring neocon “fortress Israel” fantasies about the world.
Even today, many years after the invasion of Iraq we still do not have access to Iraqi oil.
I view the interests involved in the invasion of Iraq like a cake. The neocons and Zionists baked the cake for war, while the oil and weapon contracts were merely icing on that cake.
Right, the US can get its oil from many locations, and is still a major producer.
link to tonto.eia.doe.gov
Nonetheless, I do not believe that the United States invaded Iraq primarily because we wanted Iraqi oil. I view the invasion of Iraq as a retarded policy decision that was heavily pushed by those harboring neocon “fortress Israel” fantasies about the world.
We don’t need Iraqi oil, as you said, but no one really makes a case as to why the Iraqi invasion was somehow beneficial to Israeli elites, aside from some vague notions of “Jewish neocon members of govt” and neither does Ahmad (unless I missed it).
link to ynet.co.il
From Ahmad (quoting Brzezinski) :
“From Israel’s standpoint, however, the resulting American-Arab ties are disadvantageous: they not only limit the degree to which the United States is prepared to back Israel’s territorial aspirations, they also stimulate American sensitivity to Arab grievances against Israel.”
- This contradicts his thesis, because it says that US-Arab elite relations (for energy resources) can actually trump somewhat the favored treatment given to Israel : he said “from Israel’s standpoint, not US.
Lareineblanche,
We don’t need Iraqi oil, as you said, but no one really makes a case as to why the Iraqi invasion was somehow beneficial to Israeli elites, aside from some vague notions of “Jewish neocon members of govt” and neither does Ahmad (unless I missed it).
Your actually totally correct in that the invasion of Iraq has not been beneficial to Israeli elites and to Israelis in general, just like the invasion of Iraq has not been very beneficial to Americans or American elites.
Nonetheless, when it is argued that “Israeli concerns” are the primary motivator for the American invasion of Iraq, people are usually referring to the fact that the biggest instigators for the American invasion of Iraq were those Americans who tend to have an Israeli-first agenda when it comes to American foreign policy in the ME region.
Many of these people happen to be neocons or Zionists, or don’t neatly fit into either category but have a deep love for Israel that tends to make them have incredibly irrational viewpoints on the Middle East. Its due to their ideology which views Israel as the bulwark of Democracy (Fortress Israel) against a wave of Islamo-facsists that led many of these people to view Iraq as a security threat to Israel.
Its these people due to their bizarre ideology that cheer led the US into war on Iraq and due to the 9/11 paranoia were able to pick up a host of other people to go along with them.
So while Israel is not directly responsible for leading the US into war in Iraq, its “security” was a critical reason for leading Pro-Israel forces in the United States to agitate for an American invasion of Iraq.
And of course, as I mentioned earlier, many other issues came into play, however, I do believe that perceived Israel “concerns” were the primary motivator.
David Petraeus made that very same declaration, tenfold, just two weeks ago:
Where do you find your wrecking crews? The only wrecking crews I have ever come across could barely spell “wrecking”.
The only argument that I find plausible in support of Israel’s hegemonic contribution to the US revolves around the divide and control tactic where the US plays the two blocks against each other, while playing the Arab/Muslim block against itself. Case in point, take for example, Iran vs. Saudi Arabia vs. Hizbollah, Syria vs. Egypt, Hamas vs. Fatah.
The only argument that I find plausible in support of Israel’s hegemonic contribution to the US revolves around the divide and control tactic where the US plays the two blocks against each other, while playing the Arab/Muslim block against itself. Case in point, take for example, Iran vs. Saudi Arabia vs. Hizbollah, Syria vs. Egypt, Hamas vs. Fatah.
Precisely Avi, the only problem (and I know you don’t subscribe to this motive for the Iraq war) being that undertaking such a strategy to create these results would have been far to risky to risk what the US has risked.
Unfortunately, the Iraq war has led to the escalation of the cold war between Iran (and its supporters) and SA (and its supporters).
However, I highly doubt that this was the primary motive for the American invasion of Iraq, given that invading a country to obtain a chance political reaction is highly unlikely.
Would be nice if we did that shit to Israel’s factions, too. At least than it would be fair. Though of course, knowing Israelis and their restraint, we’d end up with cluster bombs littering the streets of Tel Aviv and white phosphorous splattered on the sides of historic landmarks in Jerusalem.
So, Chaos the racist,
You do support an imperialistic strategy of divide and conquer if it is done to Israelis. Nice to see your true colors coming out.
And thank you for the ultra-racist remark. Of course Jews would immediately start shooting at each other “if you did the same shit” to us. Not only that, we would do it without any restraint. Another great Chaos generalization.
I thought you said Jews weren’t a race. How can I be a racist?
Also? I said ISRAELIS. American Jews aren’t, generally, bat-shit crazy like Israelis are.
Chaos the racist,
So let me understand, you meant that the US should play the Jews against the Arabs in Israel? Of course not. You meant it should play Jews against Jews.
So now Israelis are bat-shit crazy? Wow, you are bigot and a racist to the core. What a stupid and false generalization.
Well, the sane ones like Shmuel and Avi don’t seem to actually live in Israel, anymore.
So Jews are a race now? I need you to clarify that for me.
Actually, as Phil describes frequently, Israeli Jews are more willing to discuss contreversies about Israel than American Jews.
You’ve got to get your story straight.
Who? Eee? Are you confused by whether he thinks Jews are a race or not, too? I distinctly recall him claiming that the Jewish people were neither a race nor a religion, but a nation (one without functional borders apparently). I thought that coincided with your definition of what Jewish people are, huh.
“Well, the sane ones like Shmuel and Avi don’t seem to actually live in Israel, anymore.”
Ok, so according to Chaos Israel is mad up of 7 million crazy people. The 20% Arab Israelis are also crazy, or just the Israeli Jews? Can you clarify this for me?
“So Jews are a race now? I need you to clarify that for me.”
No, the Jews are not a race, they are a nation.
What would you that said that Hungarians were ugly? Maybe racist is not the exact word, but bigot certainly fits.
What would you that said that Hungarians were ugly? Maybe racist is not the exact word, but bigot certainly fits.
Should be:
What would you call someone who said that Hungarians were ugly? Maybe racist is not the exact word, but bigot certainly fits.
So basically, you were calling me a racist when you knew what I said wasn’t racist? You were just throwing mud and hoping it would stick, huh?
Chaos the liar,
You forgot to answer this question:
Ok, so according to Chaos Israel is mad up of 7 million crazy people. The 20% Arab Israelis are also crazy, or just the Israeli Jews? Can you clarify this for me?
You know, I’m just going to keep taunting you and refusing to take you seriously if you begin your posts with an ad hominem.
Are you supposed to be our example of a sane Israeli, then, eee? Good show.
And yet, despite all your posturing and diversionary shrieks, you are in fact THE racist as you imply that Jews are special, unlike Arabs. Jews do not shoot other Jews, they’re not as trigger happy as them Arabs, eh?
Remind me again how the colonial settlers who were removed from the Gaza strip did not throw acid at their fellow Jews, the Israeli army?
How about that one time that guy shot another Jew? What was his name? Oh yeah, Yigal Amir who murdered Rabin because Rabin was going to “give away” the land of Israel.
Yeah. Jews don’t harm other Jews, especially when politics are involved, right, racist eee?
Avi,
You are a liar and putting words in my mouth.
Where did I imply or say that Arabs would shoot at each other while Jews wouldn’t?
Of course Jews shoot other Jews, but there has not been a civil war in Israel and it is highly unlikely there will be.
Chaos made an ultra bigoted remark about Jews fighting each other and trashing Tel-Aviv if the US (urged by him to do so) would play Jews against each other. Why are you defending him?
Chaos the liar and bigot,
“You know, I’m just going to keep taunting you and refusing to take you seriously if you begin your posts with an ad hominem.”
I am starting to doubt you are sane. You very first reply to me this evening as completely ad hominem. It was something like: I don’t get it. I didn’t need to read farther, that epitomizes eee.
And now you are complaining about personal attacks? If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. You are just a bully that can’t stand receiving what he dishes out.
That too is another interesting perspective. But, one can also argue that if those “risks” could have been turned into benefits – rewards – then said tactic becomes more appealing.
Anyway, it’s just a free flow exchange of ideas. I’m delving too far into the abstract here. So, going back to the original question I hold that the Iraq invasion was carried out for the following reasons:
1. Weakening secular pan-Arab nationalism.
2. Setting up US bases and Vatican-sized embassies, which will later function as forward operating bases.
3. US government contractor profiteering.
4. Removing Israel’s regional enemy.
5. Creating a regional buffer zone between China and the oil reserves of the Middle East.
6. Bush’s attempt at proving himself to his daddy by knocking out the guy who attempted to assassinate his father.
7. Cheney’s secret White House meetings with energy giants in the Spring of 2001 raise questions as to his personal interests for the invasion. Did he personally profit from it?
Yeah, sorry guys. I know the rest of you hate this crap, and I don’t blame you. If eee’s flurry wasn’t directed at me, I wouldn’t be snickering so hard and having to flip over to YouTube to look up Aqua Teen Hunger Force clips I’m getting reminded of.
I’ll try to stop. I’ve had my fun. :)
There probably won’t be because the criminals on the left agree with the criminals on the right. The occupied territories are Israel’s to keep, international law be damned.
That’s what Israelis agree on, or as you put it, “Jews”.
Chaos the liar and bigot and coward,
You started with the ad hominem attacks. You spewed ridiculous and bigoted generalizations about Israelis. You libeled RW. And now when you have been shown for what you really are, a rabid anti-semite and irrational Israel hater, you bow out making stupid jokes and giving a half apology to the rest of the people on this blog.
Go away you coward and remember what you apologized for.
“There probably won’t be because the criminals on the left agree with the criminals on the right. The occupied territories are Israel’s to keep, international law be damned.”
Yeah Avi, there won’t be a civil war because it seems Israelis are criminals. Or is it maybe because the Americans on the left agree with the Americans on the right and keep sending Israeli money? In your mind, are all those Americans criminals also?
And since you agree that there will not be a civil war, why don’t you agree that what Chaos said is ultra-bigoted?
Actually, can you remind me? I don’t recall ever actually apologizing for anything, per se.
Avi, you’re from Israel, aren’t you?
“Actually, can you remind me? I don’t recall ever actually apologizing for anything, per se.”
Chaos, you are a dim witted idiot with a 2 minute attention span.
Do you not recall writing about 5 posts before this the following:
“Yeah, sorry guys.”
“I’ll try to stop. I’ve had my fun. :)”
For some reason you are not stopping, proving again that you are a liar.
Oh, right. Well, I wasn’t talking to you, obviously, when I said that.
chaos the liar,
No, it seems that you not only lie to me, you are very comfortable in blatantly lying to all the people that read this blog. You just said you would stop to them, yet you continue.
No I said I’ll try to stop. Then you called me a coward.
This is one of my faults, when someone kicks me, I kick back. The rest of the blog is painfully aware of that, at this point, I’m sure.
Must be a different experience for you, as an Israeli, eee — not being able to silence the non-Jew by pointing an Uzi at him or knocking his house down with a bulldozer, huh.
Chaos the liar,
What you are doing is behaving like a bully, kicking others and then complaining when you get kicked back.
You are a coward and also a liar and an anti-semite and a fine example of the filth the BDS movement brings to the forefront.
As opposed to those fine, upstanding young Israelis in Tel Aviv, huh?
Again you prove you are a bigot to the core. You use a few examples to extrapolate about a population of 7 million. You are just Aryan Brotherhood filth.
Reducto ad Nazium, huh.
Which one of us is the Nazi? I’m not the one talking about the “purity” of “mixed” marriages.
Chaos you liar,
Where did I talk about the “purity” of “mixed” marriages? You are blatant liar.
“Again you prove you are a bigot to the core. You use a few examples to extrapolate about a population of 7 million. You are just Aryan Brotherhood filth.”
Seeing as Obama’s approval in Israel fell to 4% after he Cairo speech, it’s pretty clear that those few examples were a very good sample from which to extrapolate. Hence it is you eee that is the Aryan Brotherhood filth.
Shingo,
What has Obama’s popularity in Israel got to do with any of this?
You are also a bigot to the core if you think you can generalize from a few examples to 7 million people.
Seriously, eee is like God’s gift to me for explaining to American Jews what it is Israel actually represents.
Chaos, you are a great example of the Aryan Brotherhood filth that the BDS movement brings to the forefront. You are a coward, a racist, a bigot and a raging anti-semite as our interaction shows.
Oh, don’t worry, eee, I trust the rational majority out there to read what you’ve said, and read what I’ve said, and decide for themselves who they’d rather be standing next to.
Wow! I’ve never reported (REPORT ABUSE) so many comments in a row!
I think, the whole so called “war on terror” is deeply connected to the I/P-conflict and the Bushist US-politics on ME were driven by Israel.
I agree with Karen Kwiatkowsky, that the blueprint for the US-led war on Iraq seems to be the 1996 “clean break” study:
link to en.wikipedia.org
This policy was definitely not guideligned by American interests, but by Israels wishes, and IASPS wrote this on behalf of Israeli PM Bibi Netanjahu and advocated regime change in Iraq.
One may argue, that there were some oil companies around Cheney hoping for better bizz with Iraq after a war, and that just the US failed to win the war and that’s why this goal was not achieved. But what about the war against Afghanistan?
What are the interests behind this war? It may be argued, that it was to fight “Al Qaeda”, but that battle was won after a few days and the US is fighting there now already more than 8 years in a costly war, where there is no oil. If this war was for the trans-Afghanistan-pipeline, this would be much to costly. US energy giants would be much better off trading than having this war.
So one may find it interesting, that the very same pro-Israel thinktank IASPS institute which gave out the “clean break” study for Netanyahu in 1996, released in 2000 a study called “Afghan vortex” – advocating a US-occupation of Afghanistan:
link to iasps.org
Was this the blue-print for war against Afghanistan? I can imagine it was.
And 9/11? Well, there was mentioned a need for a “catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor” in a well-known document realesed by a pro-Israel-thinktank called PNAC. It’s not clear, what it meant, but as we all know, around Pearl Harbor there are endless debates on possible advance-knowledge.
And accidently we have now a very similar advance-knowledge on 9/11:
link to en.wikipedia.org
What especially caught my attention, that the Israel lobby is engaged in branding people questioning 9/11 anti-Semites. Why?
the Israel lobby is engaged in branding people questioning 9/11 anti-Semites. Why?
Because (1) the Lobby wants to discourage independent thought about the mideast in general, lest it lead to questioning their lies.
(2) Questioning 9/11 leads to consideration of the role of Israel in the attack.
Yes, this is exactly my thoughts. And this may become really desastrous for The Lobby. John J. Mearsheimer just lined out, that I/P will become a public opinion battle between “Righteous Jews vs. New Afrikaners”. It would be something like liberal vs conservative. But when American public may suspect an Israeli role in 9/11, that could change the struggle completely. I recently found an interview given by Alan Sabrosky, a former marine and former director of studies at the US Army War College, who is off the opinion, that Israel did it and the military knows it:
link to veteranstoday.com
I don’t share many ideas and values of Alan Sabrosky, but I believe him, when he lined out, that US military men can become very angry, when they feel treason. And I think, opposite to many civilian people, military people know how false flag ops work and many of them know the story of the USS Liberty.
If such views on Israel, ie that Israel is guilty of treason, become popular in – mostly right wing – military establishment, it could dramatically change the struggle against the lobby.
And, of course, that’s exactly what Israel has the Sampson Option for.
I agree with Mearsheimer, that the battle on I/P is a battle for public opinion, not a military one. In a public opinion battle the “Sampson Option” is not useful for Israel at all. It’s even counterproductive for Israel, as Israel can be publicly slammed for not signing the NPT.
I don’t think, the military would attack Israel militarily, if it found Israel guilty of treason. But the US military is not only influential abroad due to direct military power, but also a key player in opinion building inside the United States – especially on the right wing of the political spectrum. And there are coming already tough words, much tougher then from the political administration. Just remember Petraeus:
link to spectator.org
The thought, Israel did 9/11 to influence US foreign policy and make the US wage wars, may enhance opposition in the military against Israel further.
please remind me why I should be afraid of Iran and not be afraid of Israel.
Iran is threatening a mid-east nuclear arms race in which Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt are then likely to begin developing nuclear weapons.
It is better for the world if the nuclear club shrunk rather than expanded.
The prerequisite to Israel giving up its nukes, is security and acceptance.
If you advocate for that, in the context of urging a nuclear free zone, you might be successful.
The Iranian escalation is not just bad for Israel.
So you approve of Israel using nukes to force the rest of the world to accept Israel on Israel’s terms — even as Israel breaks international laws, sovereignty and basic human decency left, right and center?
You argue that there are versions of Zionism that do not employ terrorism. You have yet to actually demonstrate that, however.
I think Israel should give up its nukes, AFTER it is confident that its safety is guaranteed.
That is certainly not the case currently, including with the vector of Iranian nuclear development. Maybe they’ll actually stop at nuclear power (another thing to rationally object to).
Chaos the racist,
So, nuclear weapons in Israeli hands is terrorism.
How about in Russian hands? How about in Chinese hands? How about in American hands?
While these saintly countries that have always respected human rights, only use their nuclear weapons for good, Israel uses its weapons in a terrorist fashion. Yeah, right.
Irrational hatred anyone?
Israel has the same right to use nuclear weapons to further its international standing just as any other country. And Iran can try acquiring weapons if it wants and Israel can try stopping them.
Gentleman, I give you… ZIONISM!
And Witty claims Iran is starting the nuclear arms race, huh.
“Israel has the same right to use nuclear weapons to further its international standing just as any other country. And Iran can try acquiring weapons if it wants and Israel can try stopping them.”
Does that mean you would advocate attacks by other countries on Israel to destroy it’s nukes?
“I think Israel should give up its nukes, AFTER it is confident that its safety is guaranteed.”
Witty likes to pretend that he’s being reasonable while proposing impossible guarantees for Israel. Israel has never offered ro give up it’s nukes with or without security guarantees. In fact, Israel refusis to even aknowledge it has nukes, while demanding that the international community punish those who aren’t producing them.
No country in the world has a security guarantee, which is why Witty insists this is a condition for Israel giving up it’s own nukes. He knows it will never happen.
Meanhile, he continues the lies about Iran’s non existent nuclear weapons program, impervious to the fact no one has proven they are making them.0
“And Witty claims Iran is starting the nuclear arms race, huh.”
The contradictions are mind numbing aren’t they? They admit that. The only reason Israel would refrain from attacking a country would be because it had nukes, then accuse others of inciting an arms race.
It reminds md if the IAF chief dho argued against Rusdia selling Irsm anti aircraft missiles because that would limit Istael’s options to bomb it.
“Does that mean you would advocate attacks by other countries on Israel to destroy it’s nukes?”
I wouldn’t advocate it, but if they want to give it a shoot, it is their decision.
“the Israel lobby is engaged in branding people questioning 9/11 anti-Semites”
Well, some of the people who don’t believe Al Qaeda did it are anti-semites. I gather there is some stupid rumor about Jews being warned beforehand, which is an anti-semitic rumor, I’d say. (I also heard rumors about Arabs knowing beforehand, and that sort of rumor is spread by the same kind of thinking).
I think 9/11 was conducted by Al Qaeda, but I do know one person (who tends to embrace conspiracy theories, btw) who are “truthers” and he’s not an anti-semite. Quite the reverse. For the one I know it is the CIA at fault–he thinks the CIA and other secretive American agencies are pretty much responsible for every bad thing that has happened in the US for decades, or that’s the impression he gives. If he’s on the right track, I think they might have bumped off my family’s dog when I was a kid. (Um, to be clear, that was a joke). But anyway, he’s quite careful to stay clear of the “Mossad did it” types.
“one person (who tends to embrace conspiracy theories, btw) who are “truthers”
Oops. Who is a truther. Actually, I know more than one truther, online anyway, but am only familiar with the detailed views of one.
To understand, what’s going on, just have a look into the biography of the “truthers” firing the 911 advanced knowldge debate. Eg, look at the “typical conspiracy nut” Anthony Shaffer:
link to en.wikipedia.org
He claims, he had idetified the major Al Qaeda cells deemed to be responsable for 9/11 a year before the attack, but was forbidden to pass the info to the FBI.
To understand even better what’s going on, just google and have a look into the bios of some more “truthers”, “conspiracy nuts” and “anti-Semites” like Coleen Rowley, Sibel Edmonds, Behrooz Sarshar, John M. Cole, Robert Wright, Dick Stoltz, Bogdan Dzakovic, William Rodriguez, Kevin Ryan, Niels Harrit and Annie Machon.
Donald,
I’ve ran into more than a couple “the Mossad did it” types on this very blog. Are you saying they are conspiracists also?
Yonira, that’s pretty bold, considering most of the conspiracy theory links posted on Mondoweiss come from you.
like what chaos? show me my boldness…..
I’m patient. You’ll regurgitate them again in the near future. I’d rather hang lampshades than unearth septic tanks. I’m lazy that way.
“I’ve ran into more than a couple “the Mossad did it” types on this very blog. Are you saying they are conspiracists also?”
Yes.
I don’t have much patience with the truther stuff, actually, but there’s only so many arguments I’m going to get into. Unfortunately people who are dissenters for good reasons on some issues can sometimes embrace non-standard ideas for bad reasons. It’s understandable–the mainstream is wrong on issues A, B, and C, so it must be wrong on everything.
There’s a whole bunch of websites devoted to anti-truther arguments and of course some on the truther side and I looked at some of them a few months ago, but don’t want to revisit it. Life is short.
At this late stage in the game, I’m not even sure it matters who was responsible for 9/11. They have pretty much A) gotten away with it, certainly whoever it was that planned, funded and organized to drop the towers; B) gotten exactly what they wanted out of the United States, that it reveal itself as an out of control military threat to Muslim populations (and a direct personal threat to individual Muslims, on levels ranging from racial profiling to torture to the death), with the United States ensnaring itself in what is essentially a “holy war” by a “Christian nation” against Islam; and C) bleeding the United States dry of its economic momentum, financial stability and established reputation post-WW2. Probably, ultimately fatally to the fate of the United States as a unified (and sadly, strongly imperialistic) nation.
It is very common in history, that a casus belli or a terror operation is disputed for ages.
I just remember how long it took, before some reliable truth about the fake incident of the Gulf of Tonkin came to light. Other events like advance knowledge on Pearl Harbor or the bombing of the USS Liberty in the six day war are still disputed. In the discussion of 9/11 it is undisputed, that there were warnings beforehand, but it is not possible to finally prove whether ignoring the information was failure to act or intentional support. So there will probably be never the one and only truth about 9/11 and if so, it will need many decades to appear. So it doesn’t matter a lot who was really behind 9/11.
But what is very real and what matters a lot, is the public opinion battle about 9/11. If it’s widely believed, that some intelligence agencies contributed to 9/11, than the blame game, that led to two wars turns around.
And the consequences of 9/11 for US foreign policy are very real. They can be much better investigated. That affects the I/P-conflict a lot and the US waged wars against Afghanistan and Iraq. And that was, what my initial comment was about: I’m off the opinion, that these both wars were designed in Israel for serving right wing Israeli interests in the I/P-confilct.
Israel/US Israel lobby/neocons had both an ideological agenda, which Dimitri Simes described to a T (see link to mondoweiss.net
as well as an economic, oil-pipeline-for-Israel agenda: see Salon, “How Chalabi Conned the Neocons,” h t t p dir dot salon.com/news/feature/2004/05/04/chalabi/ :
please note: Doug Feith, US Pentagon employee, did NOT lie to get US into war in Iraq for US oil; Doug Feith, who had Jerusalem-based business interests even while he was on the payroll of the US taxpayers, lied to get the US into war in Iraq for the benefit of Israeli oil contracts.
yes, eGuard, I remember eee giving arguments that he didn’t really probably understand, and the EI article reads almost like a total transcription of a Chomsky lecture.
But I think it’s much more convincing and well-argued than the article above:
“Also, it does not follow that regime change is the only means to achieve these goals. Indeed, all of these claims have been just as true the past half century, but they did not necessitate war”
- This doesn’t make sense, as war has never been the dominant way to achieve regime change, only in extreme cases (like Iraq), it has mostly been done by covert action.
From the EI article :
“…if US policies in the Middle East were damaging its “national interest,” as proponents of the lobby argument claim, that must mean that such policies have been a failure. This leads one to ask: a failure for whom?”
I asked the same question here the other day, funny…
You have to prove that the policies in the ME have been failures, and that these failures have been directly or indirectly caused by slavish adherence to the wishes of AIPAC.
If the Palestinians achieve some kind of victory, that will encourage citizens in other countries of the ME (Egypt, Saudi Arabia) to rise up against their govts (dictatorships, basically) and demand that the money coming from oil come back to them, and not go to Haliburton, Exxon/Mobil, etc. – this would be a disaster.
I am quite tired of incompetent assessment of how the US functions, everyone here keeps speaking about the interests of Israel and elite function with a complete disconnect. As if the lobby is not the manifestation of elite interest, when everyone knows damn well that our community is probably the most prosperous since the early eastern establishment. Where elite desire directs is where the American “interest” follows, so to talk about all of this like they are completely unrelated packages is not only ignorant it is plainly disingenuous in some instances.
So while nothing is totally congruent in any common interest there are always a meeting of minds in the major framework and goals. The lobby is merely the mouthpiece of elite design, or the insurance policy against competing interest which has always been the case with US activity both foreign and domestic. M&W merely speak for competing interest, they have never advocated for a hands off policy on the ME. It is merely a different way of trying to accomplish the same designs. The fact of the matter is both sides argue for dominance of the region, whether it is by force or by exploitative regimes. Either way the rot sets in – the Palestinians are not free, the regimes suppress their people to the tune of hegemonic design, and really the only thing this group here seems to object to is one form of dominance while they are more acquiescent to a subtler form. In other words – you do not like war, but puppet regimes are OK; you want Israel to remain and be viable and dominant but not in an overt violent form, when Zionism is totally unacceptable period. It is quite tiring, this totally parsed package you seem to deliver.
VR, please bring your POV backward to also include Truman’s decision to recognize Israel and the US leaders and State Department who opposed Truman’s decision in 1948. Thanks.
For the record, does anyone really disagree with MUHAMMAD IDREES AHMAD’s post here? The most I’ve seen so far in this thread, is that
nobody disagrees; they just think a few more factors add to it’s trajectory.
My POV includes Truman, please bring your POV up to speed with the entire range of history up to Truman Citizen.
VR- Always good to hear a voice of reason regarding U.S. Imperial policy. I, too, have wasted time replying to the “oil is fungible” argument. The reality is that Israel was initially cool to the invasion of Iraq until the neocons indicated that it was to be a necessary first step prior to an attack on Iran. That’s what Israel was interested in, destroying Iran. We had already destroyed Iraq so that it no longer was an obstacle to Israel’s Middle East hegemony, now they wanted Iran, but were sweet-talked into supporting the Iraq invasion as a precursor to Iran. The neocons wanted Iraq because of the oil and natural gas. Who thinks Israel’s interests are served by permanent American bases in Iraq? Who imagines that the U.S. would stand aside if Israel were to occupy Iraq? But since OIL IS FUNGIBLE U.S. strategic planners must be stupid. Likewise, those 750 U.S. bases around the globe, curiously concentrated at the sources of energy reserves, are idiotic. One can only be amazed that such incompetents managed to blunder into empire, all the while serving the “lobby’s” interests.
Unliess dealt with, its not going away. Now, you have a tendency to misread and deal with this topic through strawmen. This tactic will certainly cause some trouble for you in the future.
The objective interests of the West are, I would say obviously are, in maintaining peaceful relationships with the ME, permitting trade in their oil and our general resources. Existing policies have failed over and again in the sense that they have gone against our true interests. Zionist lobbies, acting enthusiastically and of their own free will, promote these policies rather assiduously (again an obvious thing) and are a necessary condition for the persistence in all this obvious folly. A necessary condition, since it is extraordinarily hard to see how public opinion would support current ME policy were these lobbies not incessantly supplying justifications.
The lobby may not be a sufficient condition: maybe it would fail without allies in high places who have motives other than supporting Israel but who profit from international tension. It’s also true, though at this point we’re going counterfactual, that if these allies had not been available Zionism would have taken a less aggressive, more Chomskyite turn.
The power of the lobby is in the persuasiveness of its ideas, and they have proved very persuasive, though to my mind they are in error. It’s a good idea to expose these errors by rational argument, as far as we are able.
“The objective interests of the West are, I would say obviously are, in maintaining peaceful relationships with the ME, permitting trade in their oil and our general resources.”
MHughes976 partially true, but no prize. Many here insist on saying that the US has nothing but benign designs on the ME, if that were the case there would be no need for a long history of war launched by the West since WW1 and previously. The idea is to impoverish the people, to keep them backward and craven with fear, in order to take the resources at highway robbery prices while just paying off a domestic elite – similar to Saudi Arabia. The US design has never been to have a strengthened people who are some sort of equal partners, never. This is because the expense of the product(s), if the country would be allowed to develop, would not be as cost effective – that is they would call it “unsustainable,” meaning not enough wild profits.
The same, as the article in EI shows, has never been the design in lets say, Central or South America. This can be seen by the wars and exploitation, and debt peonage through the instrumentation of the World Bank and IMF, the people are subjected to while a specific tiny elite prospers (please do not give me an example of the far east paper tigers, who specifically protected themselves from this process). This is why billionaires grow while the people in almost every part of the world suffer now worse than ever –
HOW TO CREATE BILLIONAIRES AND MASSIVE POVERTY
Therefore, it is time for some people to wake up here and stop the nonsense about the benevolent USA. In fact, the USA is so bad sometimes in reference to other exploiters, that Eduardo Galeano at toward the end of his book “Open Veins Of Latin America” (one you should all familiarize yourselves with) said –
“Bad Europeans and worse Americans…” pg. 118
I forgot but probably should have mentioned “cheap labor” in oppressed countries. So the time spent in these so-called third world countries, made so by dominant nations which includes the USA, is to exploit the natural and human resources of those countries. I have used this quote before, it bears usage again –
“War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small ‘inside’ group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.”
“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”
U.S. Marine Major General Smedley Darlington Butler
I don’t deny that Smedley Butler would have recognised the recent shameful coup in Honduras for what it was or that the ME problem is part of the history of Anglo-American world power. But there are arguments that are highly specific to the ME and other arguments that range more widely.
Within the wider argument there is the view of J.A. Hobson, made popular during the South African War and then taken up by Lenin, that capitalism could not survive in its heartlands without subjecting its outer lands to something like mere plunder. There is a rival view, even on the left, articulated in the 70s by Bill Warren and still discussed, that imperialist exploitation benefits all concerned and is a necessary part of the development of capitalism, therefore of the coming of socialist reform. We could be discussing ideas about imperialism overall and I suppose that there are other sites for that purpose.
But the ideas that are at war in the ME are not just a subset of these general ideas about imperialism. The claim that Altneuland is essentially beneficial for the Palestinians, as much as for anyone else, is advanced only very faintly, whereas there is a mighty din of claims that Israel has a right, if necesssary without regard to Palestinian interests, to exist for its own sake, because it is a democracy, because of the Bible, because of historic wrongs to many Jews and for more reasons, of which one is that Israel is a useful defender of Western interests.
These claims are widely and sincerely believed, so I think, as one who disagrees with them, that they have to be discussed on their merits. They are not just believed but very urgently and insistently pressed on a large scale and every day. The debate about them should not be treated as a very small part (which I think is how some of the Chomskyites see it; perhaps I’m not being fair to them) of the general discussion of Western deeds and misdeeds.
I guess, I am going to be a dissenting vioce here :) I think Stephen Maher’s article on Electronic Intifida in spot on. Firstly, Maher’s article is not an attack, per se, on Mearsheimer and Walt, as Idrees Ahmad hysterically claims. Maher mentions them once in passing, but overall speaks in general about the proponents of concept of the “lobby” position and then attempts to dissect their arguments and explain why he thinks they are wrong.
I also find it interesting that Idrees Ahmad also calls this an “embarassing episode” and then basically demands that EI shouldn’t put for this point of view forward. The debate regarding “lobby vs US imperialist interest” has been one which has been going on for many years and is one which continues today. Why shouldn’t EI run articles that support the position Maher has put forward?
Personally, I agree with Maher’s arguments that the primary reason the USA supports Israel is because it suits US imperialist interests. Interestingly enough Idrees Ahmad in his rebuttal of Maher does not address at all the central thesis made by Maher about US imperialist interest in other areas of the world (he cites examples, such as Latin America and Indonesia).
As Maher notes: “A central claim of the ‘Israel lobby’ thesis is that the ‘lobby’, however defined, overwhelmingly shapes US policy towards the Middle East. Thus, if the argument were true, its proponents would have to demonstrate that there is something qualitatively unique about US policy towards the Middle East compared with that in other regions of the world. Yet upon careful analysis, we find little difference between the purported distortions caused by the lobby and what is frequently referred to as the “national interest,” governed by the same concentrations of domestic power that drive US foreign policy elsewhere.”
Maher then goes onto note that “There are states all around the world that perform similar services to Washington as Israel, projecting US power in their respective regions, whose crimes in advancing Washington’s goals are overtly supported and shielded from international condemnation”.
Idrees Ahmad has not addressed this argument at all and unless his does then his instance that the lobby is all powerful is not convincing and neither is his rebuttal of Maher.
opps, apols for the typos in the first and last paras – that should have been “is spot on”, not “in spot on” and it should have been “insistence” not “instance”.
Actually, I’m with you on that too.
Ahmad’s argument is weak on several levels, and shows a misunderstanding of the original arguments (which, he is right, are lifted from Chomsky’s writings and talks).
There is also the logical error of thinking that the neocons being generally pro-Israeli necessarily means that everything want is geared towards benefitting Israel – this doesn’t follow.
And the other error is to think that “US interests” is equivalent to the countries, or the people’s, interest – they’re not necessarily the same thing.
Excellent points Red & RB (Francaise?)
I read that article yesterday. Maher presents a really convincing argument. It is just so convenient to finger the Israel Lobby. It is simple, easy, and straightforward. We all know who “they” are and it confirms the prejudices of many. The truth is that the military industrial lobby runs America. Don’t mess with it or else! For all we know this Israel Lobby idea is floated by people in high places to lay the blame of the Irak war fiasco on some convenient and visible scapegoat. It is not my idea and I don’t believe in conspiracy theories but I read it somewhere. The Lobby as false flag?
Non, pas français, Américain.
It’s true that the MIC, Haliburton, Exxon/Mobil, general US power projection in the region crush AIPAC like a bug in any confrontation, this is obvious.
American power goes back to the beginning of the century, in the Phillipines.
I guess it was AIPAC that “twisted our arm” to go into Vietnam, invade Cuba, too…
A lot of this takes attention away from the main criminals.
And I’m not even sure AIPAC truly represents Israel’s interests (the people, anyway). These are elites, they have their own agendas, quite apart from “the good of the nation” or other such fantasies.
Israeli elites have always feard Iran becoming powerful, and its connection to Hizbollah, I think.
Does this mean I think the Israeli lobby are good guys? You must be joking, they’re the worst kind of thugs in business suits possible. They’re disgusting.
“Israel Lobby idea is floated by people in high places”
- now you’re getting carried away
I read it somewhere
- yeah, well…
If you had read the thread, you would have seen the opposite. See the first post, or the article.
“TOP FIVE INDUSTRIES IN LOBBY EXPENDITURES 1997 Pharmaceutical/health products: $74.4 million
Insurance: $65.9 million
Telephone: $62.1 million
Oil and gas: $62.0 million
Electric power: $54.3 million
(Source: Center for Responsive Politics)”
I guess I’m being deliberately dense, but the article seems to support my view, and AIPAC isn’t even mentioned.
Both the article and the first post covers conflicts between anti-sanctions movements from the oil industries. The mid-nineties sanctions against Iran pushed out the companies when U.S. companies were Iran’s largest trading partner by far. Before the Iraq invasion, US oil companies were lobbying to trade with Iraq, and Saddam wanted to trade with US companies.
There are more instances of these losses to AIPAC. One of which is on the front page of this site. In fact, in another inversion of events, you are going to have to show where the oil industry effectively dominated AIPAC. Hell, even under the arms deals that managed to go through to the Saudis, there’s still concessions made towards the Israelis from intense internal pro-Israeli pressure.
It is this intense internal pro-Israeli pressure that Chomsky tries hard to downplay. Unfortunately for him and for you, its rather easy to demonstrate.
I agree with “Red”, that it’s OK for EI to run the article from Stephen Maher. I understand it as part of a debate, which is good to have. But I also agree with Muhammad Idrees Ahmad, that it downplays the deeds of the “Israel lobby”.
Red wrote: “its proponents would have to demonstrate that there is something qualitatively unique about US policy towards the Middle East compared with that in other regions of the world”
I may try to answer this. The qualitatively unique from my point of view is, that the US ran two wars for the interests of the Israel lobby, that were contradicting the imperialist interests of the USA. Both, the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, were and are fought for Israel, serving the interests of continuing Israeli colonialsm and both are a setback for the imperialist US position in the whole world.
While China built up it’s economy and secured natural ressources for this in the whole world, while large parts of southern America freed itself from US pressure, the US imperialism is stuck in the muds of Afghanistan and Iraq to serve Israeli interests. My opinion: This is from an imperialist US point of view completely irrational politics – and I cannot see any other reason for this than the Israel lobby.
Pingback: 'Special relationship' has only threatened the 'stable flow of oil' » blog.lonelynot.org
My minor complaint about Muhammad Idrees Ahmad’s post is that while he castigates the post on Electronic Intifada in the most lurid terms, he doesn’t once have the courtesy to mention the name of the author.
I read Stephen Maher’s post before I read MIA’a response, and just thought ‘Oh yes, another Chomsky fan’ who thinks the US is conspiring around the world to suppress progressive governments and people, which, as everybody knows, they are doing.
Israeli military elites know this very well, and have found a way to piggy-back on it to goad the US into fights against Iraq (and now Iran). Fights which they couldn’t undertake themselves. And which, if those fights go wrong (as they surely will do), can say, as Lloyd Blankfein did about Goldman Sachs’ three-card tricks: “Well they are experienced investors, and should know what they are doing.”
Richard,
There is zero proof that “Israel’s military elites” (whatever that is) or Israel goaded the US to attack Iraq. It was a bipartisan decision supported by both Republicans and Democrats. Nobody needed any goading.
That’s just fantastic only because Americans actually lived through the ramp-up to the war on Iraq, they remember the prominent Jewish neoconservative names standing hand in hand with the Christian and the corporate neoconservatives behind it (a frequent topic on this blog, but of course eee is still a newbie here) and the incredible slinging of “traitor” epithets to anyone who wasn’t behind the war 100%.
In fact, there was only one Senator at all who didn’t back the war — Russ Feingold. But of course, the other dozen or so Jewish Senators voted for it rather handily — including the other Senator from Wisconsin, also Jewish.
Is this only one senator?
I note Jewish Barbara Boxer voting against the resolution. Feingold as you mentioned, Levin, Wellstone. Sorry to get sucked into the game of counting Jewish names.
21 (42%) of 50 Democratic Senators voted against the resolution: Sens. Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), Wyden (D-OR).
1 of 49 Republican Senators voted against the resolution: Sen. Chafee (R-RI).
The only Independent Senator voted against the resoution: Sen. Jeffords (I-VT)
You know actually, I am perhaps getting the vote on the Iraq invasion and the Patriot Act mixed up.
Not only that you are conflating between American Jews and Israel. So what if ALL American Jewish Senators voted for the Iraq war. Does that mean Israel wanted the war? Only in your wrapped mind. Your statement is a glimpse into your thinking and shows that you really do not see a difference between Jews and Israel.
Oh thanks Chaos.
How about the apology on your accusations about my son, the interrogation.
So what if ALL the unicorns in the Senate voted for the Iraq war? Just about as relevant a statement as yours, insofar as hypothesis versus reality.
Forget it, Witty. I don’t apologize to apologists for ethnic cleansing and mass murder.
Chaos the liar,
Evading the question?
How is the fact any number of American Jewish politicians voted for the Iraq war relevant to the question whether Israel wanted the war? It is relevant only in your anti-semitic mind.
RW,
Why would you need an apology from Chaos? He is clearly an anti-semite and an irrational hater. You should be happy that he helps show what the BDS movement is really all about.
Anyone else looking forward to the day when I actually run eee so far down his schoolyard bully vocabulary he starts a comment with “Chaos the poopyhead?”
I’m guessing, not so much.
Yeah, Witty, you and eee get real cozy there. Don’t let me get in the way, I’ll just bow out and let the two of you just synergize together.
No Chaos, don’t run away with your tail between you legs before explaining to us why you think that if American Jewish politicians vote for something, it means Israel wants it.
Let me quote you on this:
“In fact, there was only one Senator at all who didn’t back the war — Russ Feingold. But of course, the other dozen or so Jewish Senators voted for it rather handily — including the other Senator from Wisconsin, also Jewish.”
Why does this mean that Israel supported the war?
You know, eee, most Americans lived through the last ten years; the ones who frequent this blog are particularly insightful.
I’ve said what it is, and nothing more. You’re going to label me an anti-Semite no matter what I say; from you, the accusation is meaningless considering the frequency with which you yourself attack other Jews.
And Witty is either nursing a headache, or off regurgitating elsewhere in the blogosphere. I figured he’d vacate just as soon as you latched onto him like a lamprey eel, so.
Where did you say what it is, you coward?
And since when do you care what I label you?
Convince the American Jews that read this blog that you are on their side and well meaning. Instead of running away like the weasel that you usually are explain to them (not me) what you meant by the following:
“In fact, there was only one Senator at all who didn’t back the war — Russ Feingold. But of course, the other dozen or so Jewish Senators voted for it rather handily — including the other Senator from Wisconsin, also Jewish.”
Um, these would be the same Jews that you said would “just slowly disappear” right?
Just clarifying.
Yes, chaos the liar.
By definition, Jews that marry non-Jews have a higher chance that their kids will not be Jewish. You think American Jews do not know that?
Are you going to explain what you meant by the following or aren’t you:
“In fact, there was only one Senator at all who didn’t back the war — Russ Feingold. But of course, the other dozen or so Jewish Senators voted for it rather handily — including the other Senator from Wisconsin, also Jewish.”
Actually, I’d kind of like to find out more about this intriguing notion you have that, unless a child has two Jewish parents, their “Jewishness” ceases to be “pure.”
American Jews have plenty of context to understand what I said about American politics. I’m sure they’re far more interested to know what Israelis think about their children.
Chaos the liar,
Where did I say anything about “pure”.
Take Bill Maher. His mother is Jewish, his father wasn’t. He was raised a Catholic and isn’t Jewish. No tell me genius, would he have been raised Catholic if both his parents were Jewish?
Funny, we were just talking about Bill Maher over here.
Went to nation founded by Jewish terrorists claiming a God-given right to the Holy Land, where Muslims and Christians and others have been forced off of their own homes to make room for the zealots, and what was his most damning criticism? Air powered wheel chairs.
Meanwhile he spent the rest of the film slamming every Christian he encountered as an idiot and every Muslim as a terrorist.
Bill Maher ain’t speaking from any Catholic perspective, eee. I should know, I was raised Catholic.
You are a dim witted idiot. I just gave you an example of how a mixed marriage has a better chance of producing off spring that are not Jewish. There are many such examples such as Roger Cohen and Albright.
Are Jews who rear non-Jewish children doing anything wrong, eee?
“Not only that you are conflating between American Jews and Israel.”
“Why does this mean that Israel supported the war? ”
—————-
We don’t know, genius! Maybe because they mostly, themselves, do?
Tricks and more tricks! Don’t you ever tire of the same old lame stuff?
Not at all dim witted fool. They are not doing anything wrong. But their children are not Jewish and that is why inter marriage (which is not wrong by any means) leads to the disappearing of Jews. I am just stating a fact.
So if it isn’t wrong, why does Israel make intermarriage illegal?
Chaos the dim witted liar and fool,
Intermarriage is perfectly legal in Israel. There is no state mechanism to officiate such a marriage but any such marriage conducted anywhere in the world is accepted as legal in Israel.
…meaning it’s illegal. Meaning, the state says, “You’re of race/religion X and your fiance is of race/religion Y? Marriage denied.”
What other nations have laws like that off-hand? Saudi Arabia… hmm, and that’s actually the only one I can think of off the top of my head.
No, dim witted Aryan Brotherhood filth, if intermarriages were illegal in Israel they would not be recognized by the state. For example, before gay marriages were legal in the US, gays could not get married in Europe and have the US accept their marriage as legal. That is because gay marriages were illegal in the US. But in Israel, interfaith marriages are legal and that is why the state accepts them when done abroad.
“What has Obama’s popularity in Israel got to do with any of this?”
Everything. That video was produced after Obama gave his speech adn called for a freeze on Israeli settlements. Obama’s populatiry would not have sucnk to 4% had not the majority of the 7 million population not been in agreement with those “few examples”.
It’s those 7 million people who are biggots to the core (yourself included), but what do you expect from a rancid popualtino who believe in ethnic puirity?
Why does Israel force its citizens to go abroad? That’s basically a poll tax, for marriage. If you can’t afford to go abroad (or worse, if Israel denies your travel permit, or worse still, you go abroad and Israel refuses to let you, being non-Jewish, back in because that’s happened before), you can’t get married.
Israel classifies interfaith marriage as a privilege, then, not a right.
Shingo,
You are an irrational hater and bigot. You jump to generalizations and you are happy to paint entire populations with a broad brush.
Chaos the liar,
You stated the interfaith marriages in Israel are illegal. That is clearly false and a lie. Now you are trying to weasel your way out of this. Just admit you are a liar.
Unlike our friend the Israeli here, who punishes every Palestinian man, woman and child in Gaza and the West Bank for the crime of not being Jewish, and getting in the way of those why want to build Jews-only gated communities.
If a Christian and a Muslim tried to marry in Israel, eee, what would happen to them?
“You are an irrational hater and bigot. You jump to generalizations and you are happy to paint entire populations with a broad brush.”
As opposed to rational hatred that you de
onstrate to great effect. Biggotry is racism snd you’re the one living in and celebrating a country that bases it’s entire rxistence on ethnic segregation and purity as well as being the last remaining apartheid state in the Westerm world.
Yes I do paint entire populations (at least the vast majority) with a broad brush when they go to such lenghts to demonstrate their collective biggotry, hatred and psychosis.
What’s it like to hate all of huminity eee? It must take a great deal of training and effort.
“If a Christian and a Muslim tried to marry in Israel, eee, what would happen to them?”
They would blow up idiot.
In Israel only a rabbi, a priest or an Islamic cleric could marry them since there is no way to perform a civil marriage. But, civil marriages are legal.
Shingo,
You are Aryan Brotherhood filth like chaos. Israel is a democratic country which you irrationally hate.
eee, you better have a talk with Yonira, pronto! He is planning one of those dangerous mixed marriages.
And you know, we could just about forget about that mixed-marriage thing if we could get our all-Jewish birth-rate up to snuff (or above snuff?). I thin polygamy is the way to go, we’ve done it before, and it’s kosher. Got a sister?
eee,
Why do you bother responding to Chaos? He has too much time on his hand
and nothing to say.
Gosh rachel, whaqt has eee got to say? Something very useful for the future of the pure Jewish race?
And Oh, BTW, what are you two doing about the Palestinian Demographic Time Bomb? Nod-nod, nudge-nudge, wink-wink!
Rachel, do you go? Nudge-nudge!
A street in Beverly Hills named after Herzl:
link to latimesblogs.latimes.com
BDS Beverly Hills! Someone should tell the students of UC to stop visiting Beverly Hills.
Americans seem fond of ning their streets after racist extremists;
link to prawfsblawg.blogs.com
I have reported the commenter known as ‘eee’ for his/her repeated use of the word ‘filth’ to describe other commenters. Please do not respond directly to posts by eee as the exchanges degrade this site.
Oh no, you reported me!
Chaos and Shingo are Aryan Brotherhood filth, I said it and I stand by it. What they wrote on this thread is proof enough of that.
I suggest we all report trolls like eee. They do nothing but pollute the site with their propaganda and lies and derail discussion.
Pingback: Dog wags tail (against the Israel lobby theory)