Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 2 (since 2010-05-08 16:11:14)

kilgore

journalist, writer, grad student

Showing comments 2 - 1
Page: 1

• Is Chomsky getting religion on the lobby?
  • kilgore May 25, 2010 at 2:02 pm with 2 replies

    It would be a disaster if people associated critism of Israel policy with the crackpot idea that 9-11 was an inside job, perpetuated by the Mossad. That is a surefire way to discredit those who are critical of Israel for crimes they commit, rather than than fantastic delusions of the 9-11 truth movement.

• If it was all about oil, we'd have boots on the ground in Venezuela...
  • kilgore May 14, 2010 at 8:09 pm with 5 replies

    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.

Showing comments 2 - 1
Page: 1