And today's use of the anti-Semitism smear is:
"Democratic politician Ilhan Omar has apologised after party leaders condemned her use of 'anti-Semitic tropes' in suggesting US congressional support for Israel is a result of campaign donations." (Democrat apologises for 'anti-Semitic tropes', AP/Sydney Morning Herald, 13/2/19)
To be specific, Omar's 'offence' came in the form of a tweet to the effect that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) "was paying US politicians to support Israel." (ibid)
Her apology read, in part: "Anti-Semitism is real and I am grateful for Jewish allies and colleagues who are educating me on the painful history of anti-Semitic tropes." (ibid)
Really, it's beyond sad to see progressive, pro-Palestinian, rookie politicians like Omar, who have merely spoken the truth, grovel in this way.
Instead of the 'education' she speaks of here, wouldn't it have been better for her (and others like her) as a young activist, before choosing to embark on a political career in the United States, to educate herself by reading Mearsheimer & Walt's definitive 2007 study The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy?
Had she done so, rather than grovel after the inevitable attack from the AIPAC mob and/or its dupes, she could simply have tweeted the following extract in response:
"AIPAC's success is due in large part to its ability to reward legislators and congressional candidates who support its agenda and to punish those who do not, based primarily on its capacity to influence campaign contributions. Money is critical to U.S. elections, which have become increasingly expensive to win, and AIPAC makes sure that its friends get financial support so long as they do not stray from AIPAC's line." (p 154)
In this game, it's really all about homework.
(FYI, read my 3/11/16 post Clinton Emails Reveal the Hold of Zionist Money Over Democrats.)
Showing posts with label Mearsheimer/Walt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mearsheimer/Walt. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 13, 2019
Monday, May 21, 2018
Dennis the Zionist Menace
Dennis Ross, you may remember, was Bill Clinton's Middle East 'peace' envoy. Mearsheimer and Walt see him as an integral of Israel's lobby in the United States, noting that, although Ross has "occasionally criticized specific Israeli actions," he "believes that the United States should give Israel substantial diplomatic, economic, and military support even when Israel takes actions the United States opposes" and that he "has devoted a significant amount of his professional life to encouraging this sort of support." (The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy, 2007, p 114)
Little wonder then at the Israel first content of his near 2-page spread in Saturday's Australian. Some gems - rebutted:
"The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is essentially one of two national movements competing for the same space."
No it isn't. The 'conflict' is essentially one of an indigenous people, denied self-determination in its ancestral home by the British, then set upon, driven out, or otherwise occupied, by a European settler-colonial movement - Zionism - introduced and fostered by the British." (Give them hope & peace, 19/5/18)
"In my talk [in 2005 to a few hundred Palestinians in Gaza before the Israeli withdrawal], I said that Palestinians had never been able to control their own destiny - the Arabs determined what would be done in 1948."
What rubbish! A US-manipulated UNGA set the scene in 1947 by disregarding the right of the Palestinians to determine the fate of their country and partitioning it into a Jewish and an Arab states. This, of course, gave the Zionist forces in Palestine the pretext they needed to overrun as much of Palestine as they could, and drive out as many Palestinians as they could, without any regard whatever for the borders laid down by the UN partition plan.
"Hamas said the protests would be peaceful even as it called them Demonstrations for Return - return to Palestinian homes in Israel."
To begin with, Hamas didn't organise the protests. And there is here the incredible suggestion that merely calling for the right of the Palestinians to return to the homes and lands stolen from them by Israel in 1948, and mobilising protests in support of that right, is enough to render those protests not peaceful.
"But, of course, those being mobilised don't have homes to go back to in Israel... "
And why is that Mr Ross?
"... and Israel is not the country it was in 1948."
Well, ain't that a COMPELLING reason for the Palestinians to kept in their Gaza Ghetto box?
"Hamas's leaders [want] to stigmatise Israel before the world as a way of also weakening Israel's ability to engage in self-defense and discredit it internationally."
So let me get this straight. Gunning down defenceless Palestinian protesters (we won't even mention journalists) with sniper rifles is self defence. And it's the protesters, not Israel's own actions, who are discrediting Israel. Right...
Ross pees on us but would have us think it's raining.
Little wonder then at the Israel first content of his near 2-page spread in Saturday's Australian. Some gems - rebutted:
"The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is essentially one of two national movements competing for the same space."
No it isn't. The 'conflict' is essentially one of an indigenous people, denied self-determination in its ancestral home by the British, then set upon, driven out, or otherwise occupied, by a European settler-colonial movement - Zionism - introduced and fostered by the British." (Give them hope & peace, 19/5/18)
"In my talk [in 2005 to a few hundred Palestinians in Gaza before the Israeli withdrawal], I said that Palestinians had never been able to control their own destiny - the Arabs determined what would be done in 1948."
What rubbish! A US-manipulated UNGA set the scene in 1947 by disregarding the right of the Palestinians to determine the fate of their country and partitioning it into a Jewish and an Arab states. This, of course, gave the Zionist forces in Palestine the pretext they needed to overrun as much of Palestine as they could, and drive out as many Palestinians as they could, without any regard whatever for the borders laid down by the UN partition plan.
"Hamas said the protests would be peaceful even as it called them Demonstrations for Return - return to Palestinian homes in Israel."
To begin with, Hamas didn't organise the protests. And there is here the incredible suggestion that merely calling for the right of the Palestinians to return to the homes and lands stolen from them by Israel in 1948, and mobilising protests in support of that right, is enough to render those protests not peaceful.
"But, of course, those being mobilised don't have homes to go back to in Israel... "
And why is that Mr Ross?
"... and Israel is not the country it was in 1948."
Well, ain't that a COMPELLING reason for the Palestinians to kept in their Gaza Ghetto box?
"Hamas's leaders [want] to stigmatise Israel before the world as a way of also weakening Israel's ability to engage in self-defense and discredit it internationally."
So let me get this straight. Gunning down defenceless Palestinian protesters (we won't even mention journalists) with sniper rifles is self defence. And it's the protesters, not Israel's own actions, who are discrediting Israel. Right...
Ross pees on us but would have us think it's raining.
Friday, April 20, 2018
Iraq: No 'War for Oil'
I watched George Galloway's fine 2017 doco The Killing$ of Tony Blair last night. If you haven't already seen it, I can assure you it's well worth it.
Should you do so, I have only one, albeit rather large, caution: the film has footage of Noam Chomsky parroting his nonsense about the US invasion and destruction of Iraq being a 'war for oil', a line unfortunately repeated by Galloway at the conclusion of the film.
Just to clarify, here are my top authorities, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, on this furphy:
"Saddam was eager to sell his oil to any customer willing to pay for it. Moreover, if the United States wanted to conquer another country to gain control of its oil, Saudi Arabia - with larger reserves and a smaller population - would have been a much more attractive target. Plus, bin Laden was born and raised in Saudi Arabia, and fifteen of the nineteen terrorists who struck the United States on September 11 were Saudis (none were from Iraq). If control of oil were Bush's real objective, 9/11 would have been an ideal pretext to act... There is also hardly any evidence that oil interests were actively pushing the Bush administration to invade Iraq in 2002-03." (The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy, 2007, p 254)
Should you do so, I have only one, albeit rather large, caution: the film has footage of Noam Chomsky parroting his nonsense about the US invasion and destruction of Iraq being a 'war for oil', a line unfortunately repeated by Galloway at the conclusion of the film.
Just to clarify, here are my top authorities, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, on this furphy:
"Saddam was eager to sell his oil to any customer willing to pay for it. Moreover, if the United States wanted to conquer another country to gain control of its oil, Saudi Arabia - with larger reserves and a smaller population - would have been a much more attractive target. Plus, bin Laden was born and raised in Saudi Arabia, and fifteen of the nineteen terrorists who struck the United States on September 11 were Saudis (none were from Iraq). If control of oil were Bush's real objective, 9/11 would have been an ideal pretext to act... There is also hardly any evidence that oil interests were actively pushing the Bush administration to invade Iraq in 2002-03." (The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy, 2007, p 254)
Friday, April 13, 2018
Mugging Syria for Israel 2
Still don't get who's behind the 'get Syria' push? Still don't see who's had it in for Syria for decades. Clearly, you haven't done your homework. Specifically, by reading John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's seminal 2007 study, The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy:
"It is worth recalling that some important figures in the lobby had their sights on Syria well before the Twin Towers fell. Damascus was a prominent target in the 1996 'Clean Break' study written by a handful of neoconservatives for incoming Prime Minister Netanyahu.* In addition, Daniel Pipes and Ziad Abdelnour, the head of the US Committee for a Free Lebanon (USCFL), had coauthored a report in May 2000 calling for the United States to use military threats to force Syria to remove its troops from Lebanon, get rid of its WMD, and stop supporting terrorism. The USCFL is a close cousin to the lobby, numerous neoconservatives are among its major activists and supporters, including Elliott Abrams, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, and David Wurmser. In fact, all of them signed the 2000 report, as did pro-Israel Congressman Eliot Engel (D-NY), another core USCFL supporter.
"This proposal, and others like it, did not gain much traction in Washington during the Clinton years, mainly because Israel was committed to achieving peace with Syria during that period. Apart from these hard-liners, most groups in the lobby had little incentive to challenge Clinton's policy toward Syria, because the president's approach tended to mirror Israel's. But when Sharon came to power in 2001, Israel's thinking about Syria changed dramatically. Reacting to this shift, a number of groups in the lobby began to press for a more aggressive policy toward Damascus.
"In the spring of 2002, when Iraq was becoming the main issue, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) was also promoting legislation to formally place Syria on the 'axis of evil' and Congressman Engel introduced the Syria Accountability Act in Congress. It threatened sanctions against Syria if it did not withdraw from Lebanon, give up its WMD, and stop supporting terrorism. The proposed act also called for Syria and Lebanon to take concrete steps to make peace with Israel. This legislation was strongly endorsed by a number of groups in the lobby - especially AIPAC - and 'framed,' according to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, 'by some of Israel's best friends in Congress.' JTA also reported that its 'most avid proponent in the administration' was Elliott Abrams, who, as we have seen, is in frequent contact with [Israeli PM Ehud] Olmert's office.
"The Bush administration opposed the Syria Accountability Act in the spring of 2002, in part because it feared that the legislation might undermine efforts to sell the Iraq war, and in part because it might lead to Damascus to stop providing Washington with useful intelligence about al Qaeda. Congress agreed to put the legislation on the back burner until matters were settled with Saddam.
"But as soon as Baghdad fell in April 2003, the lobby renewed its campaign against Syria. Encouraged by what then looked like a decisive victory in Iraq, some of Israel's backers were no longer interested in simply getting Syria to change its behavior. Instead, they now wanted to topple the regime itself. Paul Wolfowitz declared that 'there has got to be regime change in Syria,' and Richard Perle told a journalist that 'we could deliver a short message [to other hostile regimes in the Middle East]: 'You're next.' The hawkish Defense Policy Board, which was headed by Perle and whose members included Kenneth Adelman, Eliot Cohen, and James Woolsey, was also advocating a hard line against Syria.
"In addition to Abrams, Perle, and Wolfowitz, the other key insider pushing for regime change in Syria was Assistant Secretary of State (and later UN Ambassador) John Bolton. He had told Israeli leaders a month before the Iraq war that President Bush would deal with Syria, as well as Iran and North Korea, right after Saddam fell from power. Toward that end, Bolton reportedly prepared to tell Congress in mid-July that Syria's WMD programs had reached the point where they were a serious threat to stability in the Middle East and had to be dealt with sooner rather than later. The CIA and other government agencies objected, however, and claimed that Bolton was inflating the danger. Consequently, the administration did not allow Bolton to give his testimony on Syria at that time. Yet Bolton was not put off for long. He appeared before Congress in September 2003 and described Syria as a growing threat to US interests in the Middle East.
"In early April, WINEP [Washington Institute for Near East Policy] released a bipartisan report stating that Syria 'should not miss the message that countries that pursue Saddam's reckless, irresponsible and defiant behavior could end up sharing his fate.' On April 15, the Israeli-American journalist Yossi Klein Halevi wrote a piece in the Los Angeles Times titled 'Next, Turn the Screws on Syria,' while that same day neoconservative Frank Gaffney, the head of the Center for Security Policy, wrote in the Washington Times that the Bush administration should use 'whatever techniques are necessary - including military force - to effect behavior modification and/or regime change in Damascus.' The next day Zev Chafets, an Israeli-American journalist and former head of the Israeli government press office, wrote an article for the New York Daily News titled 'Terror-Friendly Syria Needs a Change, Too.' Not to be outdone, Lawrence Kaplan wrote in the New Republic on April 21 that Syrian leader Assad was a serious threat to America.
"The charges leveled against Syria were remarkably similar to those previously made against Saddam. Writing in National Review Online, conservative commentator Jed Babbin maintained that even though Assad's army was a paper tiger, he is still 'an exceedingly dangerous man.' The basis for that claim was an 'Israeli source who had told Babbin that 'Israel's military and intelligence arms are convinced that Assad will take risks a prudent leader wouldn't' and therefore, 'Assad's unpredictability is itself a great danger.' Marc Ginsberg, former US ambassador to Morocco, warned of 'Syria's secret production of weapons of mass destruction and its weaponization of missile batteries and rockets.' And like their Israeli counterparts, American supporters of Israel suggested that Syria was hiding Saddam's WMD. 'It wouldn't surprise me,' Congressman Engel remarked, 'if those weapons of mass destruction that we cannot find in Iraq wound up and are today in Syria.'
"Back on Capitol Hill, Engel reintroduced the Syria Accountability Act on April 12. Three days later, Richard Perle called for Congress to pass it. But the Bush administration still had little enthusiasm for the legislation and was able to stall it again. In mid-August, Engel and a group of politicians and Jewish leaders from New York traveled to Israel and met for ninety minutes with Ariel Sharon in his Jerusalem office. The Israeli leader complained to his visitors that the United States was not putting enough pressure on Syria, although he specifically thanked Engel for sponsoring the Syria Accountability Act and made it clear that he strongly favored continued efforts to push the legislation on Capitol Hill. The following month, Engel, who announced he was 'fed up with the... administration's maneuvering on Syria,' began pushing the bill again. With AIPAC's full support, Engel began rounding up votes on Capitol Hill. Bush could no longer hold Congress back in the face of this full-court press from the lobby, and the anti-Syrian act passed by overwhelming margins (398-4 in the House; 89-4 in the Senate). Bush signed it into law on December 12, 2003." (pp 273-76)
[*See my posts Absent-Minded Professors Inadvertently Set Iraq Ablaze (22/12/08) & Netanyahu & the Cauldronization of Iraq & Syria (14/3/13).]
"The Bush administration opposed the Syria Accountability Act in the spring of 2002, in part because it feared that the legislation might undermine efforts to sell the Iraq war, and in part because it might lead to Damascus to stop providing Washington with useful intelligence about al Qaeda. Congress agreed to put the legislation on the back burner until matters were settled with Saddam.
"But as soon as Baghdad fell in April 2003, the lobby renewed its campaign against Syria. Encouraged by what then looked like a decisive victory in Iraq, some of Israel's backers were no longer interested in simply getting Syria to change its behavior. Instead, they now wanted to topple the regime itself. Paul Wolfowitz declared that 'there has got to be regime change in Syria,' and Richard Perle told a journalist that 'we could deliver a short message [to other hostile regimes in the Middle East]: 'You're next.' The hawkish Defense Policy Board, which was headed by Perle and whose members included Kenneth Adelman, Eliot Cohen, and James Woolsey, was also advocating a hard line against Syria.
"In addition to Abrams, Perle, and Wolfowitz, the other key insider pushing for regime change in Syria was Assistant Secretary of State (and later UN Ambassador) John Bolton. He had told Israeli leaders a month before the Iraq war that President Bush would deal with Syria, as well as Iran and North Korea, right after Saddam fell from power. Toward that end, Bolton reportedly prepared to tell Congress in mid-July that Syria's WMD programs had reached the point where they were a serious threat to stability in the Middle East and had to be dealt with sooner rather than later. The CIA and other government agencies objected, however, and claimed that Bolton was inflating the danger. Consequently, the administration did not allow Bolton to give his testimony on Syria at that time. Yet Bolton was not put off for long. He appeared before Congress in September 2003 and described Syria as a growing threat to US interests in the Middle East.
"In early April, WINEP [Washington Institute for Near East Policy] released a bipartisan report stating that Syria 'should not miss the message that countries that pursue Saddam's reckless, irresponsible and defiant behavior could end up sharing his fate.' On April 15, the Israeli-American journalist Yossi Klein Halevi wrote a piece in the Los Angeles Times titled 'Next, Turn the Screws on Syria,' while that same day neoconservative Frank Gaffney, the head of the Center for Security Policy, wrote in the Washington Times that the Bush administration should use 'whatever techniques are necessary - including military force - to effect behavior modification and/or regime change in Damascus.' The next day Zev Chafets, an Israeli-American journalist and former head of the Israeli government press office, wrote an article for the New York Daily News titled 'Terror-Friendly Syria Needs a Change, Too.' Not to be outdone, Lawrence Kaplan wrote in the New Republic on April 21 that Syrian leader Assad was a serious threat to America.
"The charges leveled against Syria were remarkably similar to those previously made against Saddam. Writing in National Review Online, conservative commentator Jed Babbin maintained that even though Assad's army was a paper tiger, he is still 'an exceedingly dangerous man.' The basis for that claim was an 'Israeli source who had told Babbin that 'Israel's military and intelligence arms are convinced that Assad will take risks a prudent leader wouldn't' and therefore, 'Assad's unpredictability is itself a great danger.' Marc Ginsberg, former US ambassador to Morocco, warned of 'Syria's secret production of weapons of mass destruction and its weaponization of missile batteries and rockets.' And like their Israeli counterparts, American supporters of Israel suggested that Syria was hiding Saddam's WMD. 'It wouldn't surprise me,' Congressman Engel remarked, 'if those weapons of mass destruction that we cannot find in Iraq wound up and are today in Syria.'
"Back on Capitol Hill, Engel reintroduced the Syria Accountability Act on April 12. Three days later, Richard Perle called for Congress to pass it. But the Bush administration still had little enthusiasm for the legislation and was able to stall it again. In mid-August, Engel and a group of politicians and Jewish leaders from New York traveled to Israel and met for ninety minutes with Ariel Sharon in his Jerusalem office. The Israeli leader complained to his visitors that the United States was not putting enough pressure on Syria, although he specifically thanked Engel for sponsoring the Syria Accountability Act and made it clear that he strongly favored continued efforts to push the legislation on Capitol Hill. The following month, Engel, who announced he was 'fed up with the... administration's maneuvering on Syria,' began pushing the bill again. With AIPAC's full support, Engel began rounding up votes on Capitol Hill. Bush could no longer hold Congress back in the face of this full-court press from the lobby, and the anti-Syrian act passed by overwhelming margins (398-4 in the House; 89-4 in the Senate). Bush signed it into law on December 12, 2003." (pp 273-76)
[*See my posts Absent-Minded Professors Inadvertently Set Iraq Ablaze (22/12/08) & Netanyahu & the Cauldronization of Iraq & Syria (14/3/13).]
Wednesday, December 6, 2017
There Goes Jerusalem 1
OFFS:
"Donald Trump will declare formal recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel on Wednesday the White House has said, breaking with years of precedent and potentially leading to unpredictable consequences for the Middle East... In his remarks to be delivered in a diplomatic reception room in the White House, Trump will base his decision on ancient history and current political realities that the Israeli legislature and many government offices are in Jerusalem." (Trump to recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital and move US embassy - White House, Julian Borger & Peter Beaumont, theguardian.com, 6/12/17)
Can't wait to hear about the "ancient history"!
"Donald Trump will declare formal recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel on Wednesday the White House has said, breaking with years of precedent and potentially leading to unpredictable consequences for the Middle East... In his remarks to be delivered in a diplomatic reception room in the White House, Trump will base his decision on ancient history and current political realities that the Israeli legislature and many government offices are in Jerusalem." (Trump to recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital and move US embassy - White House, Julian Borger & Peter Beaumont, theguardian.com, 6/12/17)
Can't wait to hear about the "ancient history"!
Sunday, October 1, 2017
Mearsheimer & Walt's 'Israel Lobby' 10 Years On
If Spain had the Inquisition, the United States has the Israel lobby. Such is the fear of 'the lobby' in the United States that the classic book on the subject, Mearsheimer and Walt's The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy (2007) almost failed to appear:
"The two men actually gave up on the article and book years before it was published because doors kept closing... Mearsheimer spoke about the idea first at the American Political Science Association meetings in Boston in 2002; and a friend said the Atlantic wanted to commission an article on that very subject. The Atlantic magazine assigned Walt and Mearsheimer in 2002. Then it got cold feet and killed the piece in early 2005. At that time, Walt said, the two scholars thought no other outlet in the United States would publish it, but they could flesh it out as a 'short book,' so they consulted a 'number' of publishers... We got what you would call polite interest but nothing you could call enthusiasm. At one point we basically decided to drop the project entirely... After that, though, an editor who had a copy of the piece showed it to a scholar at UCLA who reached out to Mearsheimer and said the London Review of Books might be interested. The LRB version was eventually published in March 2006, and 'provoked an immediate firestorm,' Walt said. Ironically, once it provoked that firestorm, suddenly publishers... recognized that there was a product people were interested in and suddenly they were contacting us and offering us book contracts." ('The lobby is still as powerful as ever' - John Mearsheimer, ten years after publishing The Israel Lobby, Philip Weiss, mondoweiss.net, 25/9/17)
The comment by CitizenC in the thread following Weiss's post is a fair assessment of the book:
"The book and article were indeed important landmarks, and brought the issue into the mainstream. But the authors pulled their punches in certain ways. They did not examine the first chapter of the story, the 1940s, when the nascent IL overwhelmed the opposition of the military and diplomatic establishments, and forced support for the partition of Palestine and a Jewish state on the US government. They also claimed that the IL 'is just another lobby, doing its job in US interest group politics.' This was in part defensiveness about the charge of anti-Semitism, which they addressed.
"The IL is not like other lobbies. It has operated at and beyond the margins of the law since its founding. In its early years it moved adroitly thru various legal gambits and incorporations to evade prosecution under foreign agent laws. The Fulbright hearings of the early 1960s forced the founding of AIPAC by existing IL personnel, and were the end of US sovereignty in the foreign agent area, as far as Israel was concerned. Grant Smith has shown all this in an important series of books based on documents unearthed with FOIA. He feels that the USG has essentially lost the ability to enforce the Foreign Agent Registration Act where Israel is concerned.
"Much of Mearsheimer and Walt's defensiveness was due to the refusal of the left, led by Chomsky, to consider the issue, imposing instead the [Israel as] 'strategic asset' dogma. Chomsky wrote some trivial dismissal in response to the article, and ignored the book. The left is unchanged since Mearsheimer and Walt. The IL argument is still viciously attacked as anti-Semitism, notably by Jewish Voice for Peace. Ten years after the article and book appeared, Chomsky's friend Irene Gendzier tried to impose the 'strategic asset' argument on the 40s, in a risibly weak book.
"The IL has also been addressed by diplomats, politicians and academics since the 40s. Paul Findley, George Ball and Michael Cohen are examples. Nonetheless, Mearsheimer and Walt gave the issue renewed prominence, made a major contribution, and paid a price, as Phil says."
I would add to CitizenC's list in the above paragraph - and highly recommend - James Petras' The Power of Israel in the United States (2006).
"The two men actually gave up on the article and book years before it was published because doors kept closing... Mearsheimer spoke about the idea first at the American Political Science Association meetings in Boston in 2002; and a friend said the Atlantic wanted to commission an article on that very subject. The Atlantic magazine assigned Walt and Mearsheimer in 2002. Then it got cold feet and killed the piece in early 2005. At that time, Walt said, the two scholars thought no other outlet in the United States would publish it, but they could flesh it out as a 'short book,' so they consulted a 'number' of publishers... We got what you would call polite interest but nothing you could call enthusiasm. At one point we basically decided to drop the project entirely... After that, though, an editor who had a copy of the piece showed it to a scholar at UCLA who reached out to Mearsheimer and said the London Review of Books might be interested. The LRB version was eventually published in March 2006, and 'provoked an immediate firestorm,' Walt said. Ironically, once it provoked that firestorm, suddenly publishers... recognized that there was a product people were interested in and suddenly they were contacting us and offering us book contracts." ('The lobby is still as powerful as ever' - John Mearsheimer, ten years after publishing The Israel Lobby, Philip Weiss, mondoweiss.net, 25/9/17)
The comment by CitizenC in the thread following Weiss's post is a fair assessment of the book:
"The book and article were indeed important landmarks, and brought the issue into the mainstream. But the authors pulled their punches in certain ways. They did not examine the first chapter of the story, the 1940s, when the nascent IL overwhelmed the opposition of the military and diplomatic establishments, and forced support for the partition of Palestine and a Jewish state on the US government. They also claimed that the IL 'is just another lobby, doing its job in US interest group politics.' This was in part defensiveness about the charge of anti-Semitism, which they addressed.
"The IL is not like other lobbies. It has operated at and beyond the margins of the law since its founding. In its early years it moved adroitly thru various legal gambits and incorporations to evade prosecution under foreign agent laws. The Fulbright hearings of the early 1960s forced the founding of AIPAC by existing IL personnel, and were the end of US sovereignty in the foreign agent area, as far as Israel was concerned. Grant Smith has shown all this in an important series of books based on documents unearthed with FOIA. He feels that the USG has essentially lost the ability to enforce the Foreign Agent Registration Act where Israel is concerned.
"Much of Mearsheimer and Walt's defensiveness was due to the refusal of the left, led by Chomsky, to consider the issue, imposing instead the [Israel as] 'strategic asset' dogma. Chomsky wrote some trivial dismissal in response to the article, and ignored the book. The left is unchanged since Mearsheimer and Walt. The IL argument is still viciously attacked as anti-Semitism, notably by Jewish Voice for Peace. Ten years after the article and book appeared, Chomsky's friend Irene Gendzier tried to impose the 'strategic asset' argument on the 40s, in a risibly weak book.
"The IL has also been addressed by diplomats, politicians and academics since the 40s. Paul Findley, George Ball and Michael Cohen are examples. Nonetheless, Mearsheimer and Walt gave the issue renewed prominence, made a major contribution, and paid a price, as Phil says."
I would add to CitizenC's list in the above paragraph - and highly recommend - James Petras' The Power of Israel in the United States (2006).
Friday, September 22, 2017
The One Subject On Which All US Presidents Agree...
... and why.
Remember, as you read the following 'Who'd-have-thought,' that its author, Aaron David Miller (Public Policy Scholar, Woodrow Wilson Center), believes that the presidency, not the Israel lobby, is the decisive force in US Middle East policy. Hence his surprise at the enduring nature of the Trump/Netanyahu bromance:
"A year ago... I predicted that it would only be only a matter of time before US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would be annoying the hell out of one another, and that anyone who believed that Trumpland would produce a dramatic improvement in the US-Israeli relationship ought to lie down and wait quietly until the feeling passed... Clearly... I've been dead wrong. As Netanyahu and Trump met Monday at the United Nations General Assembly for the third time in the president's first eight months - a first in the history of US-Israeli relations - even I'm a little stunned by how the relationship has blossomed seemingly without serious disruption and complication. So where did I wander off the highway? And what, if anything, might change in what appears to be not just an extended honeymoon but a pretty happy marriage?" (Mea culpa: I said Trump & Bibi would blow up, foreignpolicy.com, 18/9/17)
Back in the wake of the 2007 publication of Mearsheimer & Walt's groundbreaking study, The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy, Miller insisted in an interview that "the two professors attached far to much importance to the influence of the pro-Israeli community [Miller's euphemism for Israel lobby] as a force in America's Middle East policy," that "when presidents lead... lobbies almost always will follow," and that, "in the case of Arab-Israeli peacemaking... lobbies don't carry the day." (Debate over controversial 'Israel Lobby' continues, npr.org, 20/9/07)
In light of his 'Oh-what-a-surprise' Foreign Policy piece, I'd remind Miller's of the following words of Mearsheimer & Walt's (taken from the introduction to the book Miller dismissed, in the above interview, with these words: "I'm not sure I would describe the book as a thoroughly important one."):
"America is about to enter a presidential election year... The candidates will inevitably differ on various domestic issues - health care, abortion, gay marriage, taxes, education, immigration - and spirited debates are certain to erupt on a host of foreign policy questions as well... Yet on one subject, we can be equally confident that the candidates will speak with one voice. In 2008, as in previous election years, serious candidates for the highest office in the land will go to considerable lengths to express their deep personal commitment to one foreign country - Israel - as well as their determination to maintain unyielding US support for the Jewish state. Each candidate will emphasize that he or she fully appreciates the multitude of threats facing Israel and make it clear that, if elected, the United States will remain firmly committed to defending Israel's interests under any and all circumstances. None of the candidates is likely to criticize Israel in any significant way or suggest that the United States ought to pursue a more evenhanded policy in the region. Any who do will probably fall by the wayside." (p 3)
And why is this so?:
"The real reason why American politicians are so deferential is the political power of the Israel lobby." (p 5)
So much for presidents leading and lobbies - Miller can't even bring himself to say 'Israel lobby' - following.
Remember, as you read the following 'Who'd-have-thought,' that its author, Aaron David Miller (Public Policy Scholar, Woodrow Wilson Center), believes that the presidency, not the Israel lobby, is the decisive force in US Middle East policy. Hence his surprise at the enduring nature of the Trump/Netanyahu bromance:
"A year ago... I predicted that it would only be only a matter of time before US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would be annoying the hell out of one another, and that anyone who believed that Trumpland would produce a dramatic improvement in the US-Israeli relationship ought to lie down and wait quietly until the feeling passed... Clearly... I've been dead wrong. As Netanyahu and Trump met Monday at the United Nations General Assembly for the third time in the president's first eight months - a first in the history of US-Israeli relations - even I'm a little stunned by how the relationship has blossomed seemingly without serious disruption and complication. So where did I wander off the highway? And what, if anything, might change in what appears to be not just an extended honeymoon but a pretty happy marriage?" (Mea culpa: I said Trump & Bibi would blow up, foreignpolicy.com, 18/9/17)
Back in the wake of the 2007 publication of Mearsheimer & Walt's groundbreaking study, The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy, Miller insisted in an interview that "the two professors attached far to much importance to the influence of the pro-Israeli community [Miller's euphemism for Israel lobby] as a force in America's Middle East policy," that "when presidents lead... lobbies almost always will follow," and that, "in the case of Arab-Israeli peacemaking... lobbies don't carry the day." (Debate over controversial 'Israel Lobby' continues, npr.org, 20/9/07)
In light of his 'Oh-what-a-surprise' Foreign Policy piece, I'd remind Miller's of the following words of Mearsheimer & Walt's (taken from the introduction to the book Miller dismissed, in the above interview, with these words: "I'm not sure I would describe the book as a thoroughly important one."):
"America is about to enter a presidential election year... The candidates will inevitably differ on various domestic issues - health care, abortion, gay marriage, taxes, education, immigration - and spirited debates are certain to erupt on a host of foreign policy questions as well... Yet on one subject, we can be equally confident that the candidates will speak with one voice. In 2008, as in previous election years, serious candidates for the highest office in the land will go to considerable lengths to express their deep personal commitment to one foreign country - Israel - as well as their determination to maintain unyielding US support for the Jewish state. Each candidate will emphasize that he or she fully appreciates the multitude of threats facing Israel and make it clear that, if elected, the United States will remain firmly committed to defending Israel's interests under any and all circumstances. None of the candidates is likely to criticize Israel in any significant way or suggest that the United States ought to pursue a more evenhanded policy in the region. Any who do will probably fall by the wayside." (p 3)
And why is this so?:
"The real reason why American politicians are so deferential is the political power of the Israel lobby." (p 5)
So much for presidents leading and lobbies - Miller can't even bring himself to say 'Israel lobby' - following.
Thursday, August 25, 2016
Now What Was That About Kremlin Influence in US Politics?
A mind-blowing riff/update to Mearsheimer and Walt's The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy (2007) by mondoweiss.net's excellent Philip Weiss:
"Over the weekend there was a lot more talk about Donald Trump... loving Russia, and about how Vladimir Putin wants Trump to win. 'The hand of the Kremlin has been at work in this campaign for some time,' Hillary Clinton's campaign manager said on ABC. The Russian influence must be true because it's all over our media; but you can be sure it's only half true because they're saying it so loud. The other half of the truth is that Russia is going to lose, big (because the media are talking about it and because Trump is going down). And the media have a guilty conscience, because they know the US power structure is beholden to Israel, but they can't talk about that foreign influence.
"No one talks about the hand of Israel; but Hillary Clinton promises her biggest donor, Haim Saban, whose one issue is Israel, that she'll work against the boycott campaign and she'll meet Benjamin Netanyahu in her first month of office: the same Netanyahu who tried to undermine our president's signature foreign policy achievement by speaking and lobbying Congress under the president's nose, Netanyahu who said that America could be easily moved, Netanyahu who pushed the Iraq war in 2002 to transform the Middle East, even as Hillary Clinton was voting for that war.
"The latest batch of Clinton emails show that then Secretary of State Clinton was shuffling her schedule to meet with big Clinton Foundation donors who care about Israel. 'I'm on shuttle w Avigdor Libermann... I want to stop by to see hrc tonite for 10 mins,' wrote one of them.
"When Donald Trump tried to take a 'neutral' position on Israel, Hillary Clinton told the leading Israel lobby group AIPAC that he had 'no business' being president and she was going to take the relationship with Israel 'to the next level.' "When Bernie Sanders tried to stake out a neutral position on Israel, Clinton's catspaw at the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, complained privately, 'The Israel stuff is disturbing.' Or as Anne Lewis, Clinton's political guru who is also a Zionist, said, 'The role of the president of the United States is to support the decisions that are made by the people of Israel.'
"Both Clinton, this summer, and Obama, four summers ago, squashed the party's grass roots when they made a move to change the party platform on Israel, because the nominees worried about losing big Jewish Zionist donors - whose influence over the Democratic Party is 'gigantic' and 'shocking,' JJ Goldberg and Stephanie Schriock of Emily's List said this spring.
"So Clinton made sure that the word 'occupation' didn't appear in the platform, in this the 50th year of the occupation. Just as Neera Tanden, the Clinton aide who heads a Democratic Party thinktank, censored articles that were critical of Israel; and a few months later the authors of those articles were no longer employed by her thinktank; and meantime Tanden kissed up to Benjamin Netanyahu, at the very time he was undermining President Obama on the Iran deal, and months after he had used racist appeals - 'Arab voters are coming out in droves' - to win another term.
"But let's talk about Russian influence.
"It has now been 10 years since The Israel Lobby paper was published in London - not here, because it couldn't be published here. Notwithstanding the article and book's impact, it's a shadow impact; everyone in the shadow of the establishment has read it and everyone in the establishment has read it too, but with a plain brown cover on it, as Colin Powell's former chief of staff joked. Because to be in the establishment you must deny its importance. The Atlantic, which commissioned and killed the original paper, continues to publish Jeffrey Goldberg, who once served in the Israeli military, and who helped give us the Iraq war with bad reports in 2002, and who tried to undermine the Iran deal and who calls the fascistic defense minister Avigdor Lieberman by his nickname 'Yvet' and the milquetoast centrist Yitzhak Herzog by his nickname 'Boogie.'
"And everyone in American public life calls the fascistic prime minister of Israel by his nickname, Bibi. Including PBS. I don't know what Vladimir Putin's nickname is, and I don't want to know.
"The central idea of the Israel lobby is simple and it has been confirmed a hundred times but the media will never report it directly. Here it is: United States support is an existential issue for Israel; but non-Jewish voters and leaders cannot be counted upon to love Israel on their own, and therefore the tiny American Jewish community must speak in one voice and (unified checkbooks) persuade American leaders that it's in the US's best interest to do so.
"Israel supporters confirm this idea again and again. 'What keeps me up at night is the dependence of Israel on the United States' - Abe Foxman. 'American Jews had a deferential attitude toward Israel. They saw their job to support Israel, to provide Israel with financial and political support it asked for' - Dov Waxman, scholar. 'Jews don't like big military budgets. But it is now an interest of the Jews to have a large and powerful military establishment in the United States... American Jews who care about the survival of the state of Israel have to say no, we don't want to cut the military budget, it is important to keep that military budget big, so that we can defend Israel' - the late neocon godfather Irving Kristol. 'We [Jews] don't need to be advocates for Palestinians. We need to be advocates for Israel... because the essence of Zionism is... you [Jews] shape your destiny, you don't let others do it' - perennial White House aide and peace processor-charade leader Dennis Ross.
"So the Emergency Committee for Israel, a group started by Kristol's son Bill, gives Arkansas Rep. Tom Cotton nearly $1m so he could become Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton after just 2 years in the House and then lead the charge against the Iran deal.
"But let's talk about Russia's influence.
"Israel's influence has distorted our politics for nearly 40 years. Tom Friedman told a British interviewer that George W Bush abandoned the peace process because he saw his father take on the Israel lobby and lose a second term. Tom Friedman said the Congress is 'bought and paid for' by the Israel lobby. Tom Friedman told an Israeli interviewer that if you put 25 neoconservatives on a desert island in 2002, we wouldn't have had an Iraq war.
"But Friedman never wrote about the lobby head on, a dereliction of duty if ever there was one. It is just too embarrassing or hurtful to talk about the role of Zionist Jews in US public life. The idea has to be suppressed because a) we all know that there is a dual loyalty element implicit in Zionism and talking about the lobby brings up the whole international-Jew canard; and b) the lobby has been effective by working behind the scenes as a 'nightflower,' so its purpose is defeated when people talk about it and everyone gets to weigh in. But if you don't talk about it, then everyone just accepts it as the given of the American power structure, which is where we are now. Chris Mathews is constantly doing Irish Catholic identity politics when Irish Catholic Americans come on his show, but he's afraid to say boo about the powerful pro-Israel Jews who own/run his employer Comcast, the largest media company in the country...
"From the start, empowered Jewish journalists denied that there was a lobby or it was powerful. Jeffrey Goldberg told the Center for Jewish History that it was no different from the ball-bearings lobby. David Remnick made the joke that if there wasn't an Israel lobby, Osama bin Laden would be able to go back into the construction business. And meanwhile he was publishing Jeffrey Goldberg's reporting about Saddam's links to Al Qaeda and Saddam's acquisition of WMD that helped the US get into Iraq. Why did Goldberg push this stuff? Was it out of concern for Israel? There's never been an accounting.
"And three years after his Osama joke, Remnick gave an interview to a Hebrew publication in which he acknowledged that the American Jewish community had sustained the occupation:
How long can you expect that they [US Jews] will love unconditionally the place called Israel? You've got a problem. You have the status of an occupier since 1967... Sorry it can't go on this way. The Jewish community is not just a nice breakfast at the Regency.
"But like Friedman, Remnick doesn't publish this analysis under his byline. It's out of the side of his mouth. He knows there's a price to be paid. With the exception of Yousef Munayyer, Remnick publishes Zionists - people like Ari Shavit, who works for AIPAC and lobbies Jewish kids on campus, and David Makovsky, of the AIPEC spinoff WINEP, who has said that checkpoints won't be so burdensome when Israel uses 'appropriate biometrics' for Palestinians in those lines. The magazine's go-to reporter on Israeli political trends is Bernard Avishai, who's very good, but let's be clear - a cultural Zionist.
"If you don't like Russia, you can surely still make your way in public life, but if you don't like Israel, it's a CLM, as they say at Goldman Sachs. Career Limiting Move. When Jim Clancy accused pro-Israel groups of doing 'hasbara,' or PR, around the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris, he lost his job at CNN. When Jimmy Carter accused Israel of practicing apartheid, he got attacked on air by Wolf Blitzer and Terry Gross and was exiled from the Democratic Convention.
"And four reporters at the New York Times have had kids in uniform for Israel, including columnist David Brooks, the go-to pundit on NPR and PBS who said after his dozenth trip to Israel that he is 'gooey-eyed' about Israel. And the New York Times bureau chief in Israel lives in an addition to a house that was stolen from a prominent Palestinian journalist in 1948; and that journalist's daughter the physician and activist Ghada Karmi has written and spoken about visiting that house to try and overcome her pain; but one thing you can be sure of: That story won't be in the New York Times. Josh Marshall will tell you all about Russia influencing Trump, and meantime he names his baby after an Israeli war hero, but ho hum.
"But let's talk some more about the Kremlin.
"The media is all about how much money Paul Manafort got from the Ukrainians, but the media won't tell you that the two guys advocating the bombing of Assad in the New York Times work at a thinktank, WINEP, that the Israel lobby group AIPAC spun off, and one of those authors has called for American Jews to be 'advocates for Israel,' not for Palestinians. It won't tell you that Sheldon Adelson regrets wearing an American uniform, and wished he was wearing an Israeli uniform.
"It will never put all the facts together and name the trend, as I'm doing here right now, out of my back pocket. So I remember that Samantha Power once described the Israel lobby as 'a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import,' and as a result had to make the execrable rabbi Shmuley Boteach her consort in the rightwing Jewish community, so as to get the lobby's approval for her appointment to the UN job.
"And that Chuck Hagel once said that 'the Jewish lobby intimidates people' on Capitol hill, and he almost didn't become Defense Secretary because of that, and his grilling by the Senate resulted in a Saturday Night live sketch that didn't air in which Hagel was asked if he would 'fellate a donkey for Netanyahu.'*
"That's one good thing, everyone's now in on the joke. Even if the media can't discuss it, everyone knows it. Our system is rigged.
"But enough about all that. Let's talk about Russian influence." (Let's talk about Russian influence, 23/8/16)
[*See my 14/2/13 post USrael: The Movie.]
"Over the weekend there was a lot more talk about Donald Trump... loving Russia, and about how Vladimir Putin wants Trump to win. 'The hand of the Kremlin has been at work in this campaign for some time,' Hillary Clinton's campaign manager said on ABC. The Russian influence must be true because it's all over our media; but you can be sure it's only half true because they're saying it so loud. The other half of the truth is that Russia is going to lose, big (because the media are talking about it and because Trump is going down). And the media have a guilty conscience, because they know the US power structure is beholden to Israel, but they can't talk about that foreign influence.
"No one talks about the hand of Israel; but Hillary Clinton promises her biggest donor, Haim Saban, whose one issue is Israel, that she'll work against the boycott campaign and she'll meet Benjamin Netanyahu in her first month of office: the same Netanyahu who tried to undermine our president's signature foreign policy achievement by speaking and lobbying Congress under the president's nose, Netanyahu who said that America could be easily moved, Netanyahu who pushed the Iraq war in 2002 to transform the Middle East, even as Hillary Clinton was voting for that war.
"The latest batch of Clinton emails show that then Secretary of State Clinton was shuffling her schedule to meet with big Clinton Foundation donors who care about Israel. 'I'm on shuttle w Avigdor Libermann... I want to stop by to see hrc tonite for 10 mins,' wrote one of them.
"When Donald Trump tried to take a 'neutral' position on Israel, Hillary Clinton told the leading Israel lobby group AIPAC that he had 'no business' being president and she was going to take the relationship with Israel 'to the next level.' "When Bernie Sanders tried to stake out a neutral position on Israel, Clinton's catspaw at the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, complained privately, 'The Israel stuff is disturbing.' Or as Anne Lewis, Clinton's political guru who is also a Zionist, said, 'The role of the president of the United States is to support the decisions that are made by the people of Israel.'
"Both Clinton, this summer, and Obama, four summers ago, squashed the party's grass roots when they made a move to change the party platform on Israel, because the nominees worried about losing big Jewish Zionist donors - whose influence over the Democratic Party is 'gigantic' and 'shocking,' JJ Goldberg and Stephanie Schriock of Emily's List said this spring.
"So Clinton made sure that the word 'occupation' didn't appear in the platform, in this the 50th year of the occupation. Just as Neera Tanden, the Clinton aide who heads a Democratic Party thinktank, censored articles that were critical of Israel; and a few months later the authors of those articles were no longer employed by her thinktank; and meantime Tanden kissed up to Benjamin Netanyahu, at the very time he was undermining President Obama on the Iran deal, and months after he had used racist appeals - 'Arab voters are coming out in droves' - to win another term.
"But let's talk about Russian influence.
"It has now been 10 years since The Israel Lobby paper was published in London - not here, because it couldn't be published here. Notwithstanding the article and book's impact, it's a shadow impact; everyone in the shadow of the establishment has read it and everyone in the establishment has read it too, but with a plain brown cover on it, as Colin Powell's former chief of staff joked. Because to be in the establishment you must deny its importance. The Atlantic, which commissioned and killed the original paper, continues to publish Jeffrey Goldberg, who once served in the Israeli military, and who helped give us the Iraq war with bad reports in 2002, and who tried to undermine the Iran deal and who calls the fascistic defense minister Avigdor Lieberman by his nickname 'Yvet' and the milquetoast centrist Yitzhak Herzog by his nickname 'Boogie.'
"And everyone in American public life calls the fascistic prime minister of Israel by his nickname, Bibi. Including PBS. I don't know what Vladimir Putin's nickname is, and I don't want to know.
"The central idea of the Israel lobby is simple and it has been confirmed a hundred times but the media will never report it directly. Here it is: United States support is an existential issue for Israel; but non-Jewish voters and leaders cannot be counted upon to love Israel on their own, and therefore the tiny American Jewish community must speak in one voice and (unified checkbooks) persuade American leaders that it's in the US's best interest to do so.
"Israel supporters confirm this idea again and again. 'What keeps me up at night is the dependence of Israel on the United States' - Abe Foxman. 'American Jews had a deferential attitude toward Israel. They saw their job to support Israel, to provide Israel with financial and political support it asked for' - Dov Waxman, scholar. 'Jews don't like big military budgets. But it is now an interest of the Jews to have a large and powerful military establishment in the United States... American Jews who care about the survival of the state of Israel have to say no, we don't want to cut the military budget, it is important to keep that military budget big, so that we can defend Israel' - the late neocon godfather Irving Kristol. 'We [Jews] don't need to be advocates for Palestinians. We need to be advocates for Israel... because the essence of Zionism is... you [Jews] shape your destiny, you don't let others do it' - perennial White House aide and peace processor-charade leader Dennis Ross.
"So the Emergency Committee for Israel, a group started by Kristol's son Bill, gives Arkansas Rep. Tom Cotton nearly $1m so he could become Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton after just 2 years in the House and then lead the charge against the Iran deal.
"But let's talk about Russia's influence.
"Israel's influence has distorted our politics for nearly 40 years. Tom Friedman told a British interviewer that George W Bush abandoned the peace process because he saw his father take on the Israel lobby and lose a second term. Tom Friedman said the Congress is 'bought and paid for' by the Israel lobby. Tom Friedman told an Israeli interviewer that if you put 25 neoconservatives on a desert island in 2002, we wouldn't have had an Iraq war.
"But Friedman never wrote about the lobby head on, a dereliction of duty if ever there was one. It is just too embarrassing or hurtful to talk about the role of Zionist Jews in US public life. The idea has to be suppressed because a) we all know that there is a dual loyalty element implicit in Zionism and talking about the lobby brings up the whole international-Jew canard; and b) the lobby has been effective by working behind the scenes as a 'nightflower,' so its purpose is defeated when people talk about it and everyone gets to weigh in. But if you don't talk about it, then everyone just accepts it as the given of the American power structure, which is where we are now. Chris Mathews is constantly doing Irish Catholic identity politics when Irish Catholic Americans come on his show, but he's afraid to say boo about the powerful pro-Israel Jews who own/run his employer Comcast, the largest media company in the country...
"From the start, empowered Jewish journalists denied that there was a lobby or it was powerful. Jeffrey Goldberg told the Center for Jewish History that it was no different from the ball-bearings lobby. David Remnick made the joke that if there wasn't an Israel lobby, Osama bin Laden would be able to go back into the construction business. And meanwhile he was publishing Jeffrey Goldberg's reporting about Saddam's links to Al Qaeda and Saddam's acquisition of WMD that helped the US get into Iraq. Why did Goldberg push this stuff? Was it out of concern for Israel? There's never been an accounting.
"And three years after his Osama joke, Remnick gave an interview to a Hebrew publication in which he acknowledged that the American Jewish community had sustained the occupation:
How long can you expect that they [US Jews] will love unconditionally the place called Israel? You've got a problem. You have the status of an occupier since 1967... Sorry it can't go on this way. The Jewish community is not just a nice breakfast at the Regency.
"But like Friedman, Remnick doesn't publish this analysis under his byline. It's out of the side of his mouth. He knows there's a price to be paid. With the exception of Yousef Munayyer, Remnick publishes Zionists - people like Ari Shavit, who works for AIPAC and lobbies Jewish kids on campus, and David Makovsky, of the AIPEC spinoff WINEP, who has said that checkpoints won't be so burdensome when Israel uses 'appropriate biometrics' for Palestinians in those lines. The magazine's go-to reporter on Israeli political trends is Bernard Avishai, who's very good, but let's be clear - a cultural Zionist.
"If you don't like Russia, you can surely still make your way in public life, but if you don't like Israel, it's a CLM, as they say at Goldman Sachs. Career Limiting Move. When Jim Clancy accused pro-Israel groups of doing 'hasbara,' or PR, around the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris, he lost his job at CNN. When Jimmy Carter accused Israel of practicing apartheid, he got attacked on air by Wolf Blitzer and Terry Gross and was exiled from the Democratic Convention.
"And four reporters at the New York Times have had kids in uniform for Israel, including columnist David Brooks, the go-to pundit on NPR and PBS who said after his dozenth trip to Israel that he is 'gooey-eyed' about Israel. And the New York Times bureau chief in Israel lives in an addition to a house that was stolen from a prominent Palestinian journalist in 1948; and that journalist's daughter the physician and activist Ghada Karmi has written and spoken about visiting that house to try and overcome her pain; but one thing you can be sure of: That story won't be in the New York Times. Josh Marshall will tell you all about Russia influencing Trump, and meantime he names his baby after an Israeli war hero, but ho hum.
"But let's talk some more about the Kremlin.
"The media is all about how much money Paul Manafort got from the Ukrainians, but the media won't tell you that the two guys advocating the bombing of Assad in the New York Times work at a thinktank, WINEP, that the Israel lobby group AIPAC spun off, and one of those authors has called for American Jews to be 'advocates for Israel,' not for Palestinians. It won't tell you that Sheldon Adelson regrets wearing an American uniform, and wished he was wearing an Israeli uniform.
"It will never put all the facts together and name the trend, as I'm doing here right now, out of my back pocket. So I remember that Samantha Power once described the Israel lobby as 'a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import,' and as a result had to make the execrable rabbi Shmuley Boteach her consort in the rightwing Jewish community, so as to get the lobby's approval for her appointment to the UN job.
"And that Chuck Hagel once said that 'the Jewish lobby intimidates people' on Capitol hill, and he almost didn't become Defense Secretary because of that, and his grilling by the Senate resulted in a Saturday Night live sketch that didn't air in which Hagel was asked if he would 'fellate a donkey for Netanyahu.'*
"That's one good thing, everyone's now in on the joke. Even if the media can't discuss it, everyone knows it. Our system is rigged.
"But enough about all that. Let's talk about Russian influence." (Let's talk about Russian influence, 23/8/16)
[*See my 14/2/13 post USrael: The Movie.]
Thursday, March 24, 2016
Sanders Does AIPAC
The circus clowning of a Clinton or a Trump is not the nadir of a US presidential campaign. Kissing Israel's ring at the court of King AIPAC is.
This was Obama in 2008:
"I first became familiar with the story of Israel when I was 11 years old. I learned of the long journey and steady determination of the Jewish people to preserve their identity through faith, family and culture. Year after year, century after century, Jews carried on their traditions, and their dream of a homeland in the face of impossible odds... Our alliance is based on shared interests and shared values. Those who threaten Israel, threaten us. Israel has always faced these threats on the front lines. And I will bring to the White House an unshakeable commitment to Israel's security."
This is Bernie Sanders now:
"I was invited along with other presidential candidates to be at the AIPAC conference in Washington, but obviously I could not make it because we are here. The issues that AIPAC are dealing with are very important issues and I wanted to give the same speech here as I would have given if I were at that conference. Let me begin by saying that I am probably the only candidate for president who has personal ties with Israel. I spent a number of months there when I was a young man on a kibbutz, so I know a little bit about Israel. Clearly the United States and Israel are united by historical ties. We are united by culture. We are united by our values, including a deep commitment to democratic principles, civil rights, and the rule of law." (Sanders outlines Middle East policy, berniesanders.com, 21/3/16)
No need, as you can see, to bother with the rest of his speech. Same old, same old.
As Mearsheimer & Walt noted almost ten years ago:
"America is about to enter a presidential election year. Although the outcome is of course impossible to predict at this stage, certain features of the campaign are easy to foresee. The candidates will inevitably differ on various domestic issues - health care, abortion, gay marriage, taxes, education, immigration - and spirited debates are certain to erupt on a host of foreign policy questions as well... Yet on one subject, we can be equally confident that the candidates will speak with one voice. In 2008, as in previous election years, serious candidates for the highest office in the land will go to considerable lengths to express their deep personal commitment to one foreign country - Israel - as well as their determination to maintain unyielding US support for the Jewish state. Each candidate will emphasize that he or she fully appreciates the multitude of threats facing Israel and make it clear that, if elected, the United States will remain firmly committed to defending Israel's interests under any and all circumstances." (The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy, 2007)
This was Obama in 2008:
"I first became familiar with the story of Israel when I was 11 years old. I learned of the long journey and steady determination of the Jewish people to preserve their identity through faith, family and culture. Year after year, century after century, Jews carried on their traditions, and their dream of a homeland in the face of impossible odds... Our alliance is based on shared interests and shared values. Those who threaten Israel, threaten us. Israel has always faced these threats on the front lines. And I will bring to the White House an unshakeable commitment to Israel's security."
This is Bernie Sanders now:
"I was invited along with other presidential candidates to be at the AIPAC conference in Washington, but obviously I could not make it because we are here. The issues that AIPAC are dealing with are very important issues and I wanted to give the same speech here as I would have given if I were at that conference. Let me begin by saying that I am probably the only candidate for president who has personal ties with Israel. I spent a number of months there when I was a young man on a kibbutz, so I know a little bit about Israel. Clearly the United States and Israel are united by historical ties. We are united by culture. We are united by our values, including a deep commitment to democratic principles, civil rights, and the rule of law." (Sanders outlines Middle East policy, berniesanders.com, 21/3/16)
No need, as you can see, to bother with the rest of his speech. Same old, same old.
As Mearsheimer & Walt noted almost ten years ago:
"America is about to enter a presidential election year. Although the outcome is of course impossible to predict at this stage, certain features of the campaign are easy to foresee. The candidates will inevitably differ on various domestic issues - health care, abortion, gay marriage, taxes, education, immigration - and spirited debates are certain to erupt on a host of foreign policy questions as well... Yet on one subject, we can be equally confident that the candidates will speak with one voice. In 2008, as in previous election years, serious candidates for the highest office in the land will go to considerable lengths to express their deep personal commitment to one foreign country - Israel - as well as their determination to maintain unyielding US support for the Jewish state. Each candidate will emphasize that he or she fully appreciates the multitude of threats facing Israel and make it clear that, if elected, the United States will remain firmly committed to defending Israel's interests under any and all circumstances." (The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy, 2007)
Monday, January 18, 2016
Reviewing the Review
Nicely nailed by reviewer Richard King:
"The first thing you find when you open Anti-Semitism is an errata slip informing you that its author, Frederic Raphael, has mistaken D.H. Lawrence for T.E. Lawrence, Arthur Koestler for Arthur Schnitzler and the figure of 16,000 for 1600 (the number of Jews killed in Jedwabne, Poland, in 1941). This is not a great start; one is entitled to expect a little more care, especially given the gravity of the subject and the brevity with which it is treated here. But none of these confusions, or all of them together, is a patch on the central confusion of this book, which is the equation of determined criticism of Israel with historical anti-Semitism." (The flawed equation at the heart of a timely analysis, Sydney Morning Herald, 16/1/16)
However:
"For while it is undoubtedly true that the miasma of anti-Semitism surrounds much dark talk about the Israel 'lobby', and true too that many liberals and left-wingers are apt to downplay the anti-Semitism extant within the Muslim community..."
So, Richard, some talk about the "Israel 'lobby'" is OK, but not other? Can you give me examples? And why is the word 'lobby' in inverted commas? What's that about?
May I suggest that maybe, if you'd taken the time and trouble to read Mearsheimer & Walt's The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy, as every informed person should, I really don't think you'd have used inverted commas in this context.
As for slandering Liberals, Left and Muslims in one fell swoop, I could ask you for chapter & verse on this, but, to take another tack: are you aware that, when all is said and done, for a Zionist, you yourself are actually an anti-Semite? As Chaim Weizmann, who should know a thing or two about Zionism, once declared: "Anti-Semitism... is a bacillus which every Gentile carries with him, wherever he goes and however often he denies it." (Richard Crossman, A Nation Reborn: The Israel of Weizmann, Bevin & Ben-Gurion, 1960, p 21)
"Disproportionate our emphasis on Israel may be..."
Hello? "Our emphasis on Israel"?
What with Zionists blowing their own trumpets on every conceivable occasion when they're not crying anti-Semitism; and the media taking extra-special care not to tread on Israel's toes for fear of coming under Israel lobby pressure (Look, Ma, no inverted commas!) or being smeared as anti-Semitic; and our politicians and journalists, so-called, streaming over to the apartheid state for pro-Israel programming; and Israel routinely testing state-of-the-art weaponry on Palestinian guinea-pigs before exporting it to every conceivable trouble spot around the world; and Israeli-PMs twirling US presidents around their little fingers; and... we're placing a disproportionate emphasis on Israel?!
"Though Raphael is right to say that anti-Semitism and 'anti-Zionism' cannot always be neatly separated..."
No, he's not. He's dead wrong.
Look, it's really not that hard, Richard. If you support the existence of a Jewish state in Palestine, you're a Zionist. If you don't, you're an anti-Zionist. You are either someone who believes that it is right and proper to have a sectarian, ethnocratic state in Palestine, or you aren't.
Richard King btw is the author of a book titled On Offence. I haven't read it, but let me say that if those who make a show of being offended are his subject, and he hasn't got a chapter or two or three on the mob who have made a career out of taking offence at anyone who looks sideways at Israel, aka the Israel lobby, then he needs to do his homework and put out a revised version NOW.
Be that as it may, I'll forgive him for that great intro. above.
As for Frederic Raphael, who, on investigation, turns out to be a novelist and screenwriter, I thought I'd listen to Phillip Adams' interview with the guy (Anti-Semitism then & now, Late Night Live, 26/11/15)
*...*
I heard him [Raphael] say that "Israel has behaved badly," which is based on the incredible assumption that a colonial-settler state which has taken someone else's land, sent its people packing, and refuses them re-entry because it'd mess with the preferred demographic, has the capacity to behave in any other way than badly.
And - *...* - I heard him refer to the "so-called occupied territories."
Without Phillip Adams, who just had to slip in at one point that he was a "philo-Semite," pulling the bugger up, FFS!
"The first thing you find when you open Anti-Semitism is an errata slip informing you that its author, Frederic Raphael, has mistaken D.H. Lawrence for T.E. Lawrence, Arthur Koestler for Arthur Schnitzler and the figure of 16,000 for 1600 (the number of Jews killed in Jedwabne, Poland, in 1941). This is not a great start; one is entitled to expect a little more care, especially given the gravity of the subject and the brevity with which it is treated here. But none of these confusions, or all of them together, is a patch on the central confusion of this book, which is the equation of determined criticism of Israel with historical anti-Semitism." (The flawed equation at the heart of a timely analysis, Sydney Morning Herald, 16/1/16)
However:
"For while it is undoubtedly true that the miasma of anti-Semitism surrounds much dark talk about the Israel 'lobby', and true too that many liberals and left-wingers are apt to downplay the anti-Semitism extant within the Muslim community..."
So, Richard, some talk about the "Israel 'lobby'" is OK, but not other? Can you give me examples? And why is the word 'lobby' in inverted commas? What's that about?
May I suggest that maybe, if you'd taken the time and trouble to read Mearsheimer & Walt's The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy, as every informed person should, I really don't think you'd have used inverted commas in this context.
As for slandering Liberals, Left and Muslims in one fell swoop, I could ask you for chapter & verse on this, but, to take another tack: are you aware that, when all is said and done, for a Zionist, you yourself are actually an anti-Semite? As Chaim Weizmann, who should know a thing or two about Zionism, once declared: "Anti-Semitism... is a bacillus which every Gentile carries with him, wherever he goes and however often he denies it." (Richard Crossman, A Nation Reborn: The Israel of Weizmann, Bevin & Ben-Gurion, 1960, p 21)
"Disproportionate our emphasis on Israel may be..."
Hello? "Our emphasis on Israel"?
What with Zionists blowing their own trumpets on every conceivable occasion when they're not crying anti-Semitism; and the media taking extra-special care not to tread on Israel's toes for fear of coming under Israel lobby pressure (Look, Ma, no inverted commas!) or being smeared as anti-Semitic; and our politicians and journalists, so-called, streaming over to the apartheid state for pro-Israel programming; and Israel routinely testing state-of-the-art weaponry on Palestinian guinea-pigs before exporting it to every conceivable trouble spot around the world; and Israeli-PMs twirling US presidents around their little fingers; and... we're placing a disproportionate emphasis on Israel?!
"Though Raphael is right to say that anti-Semitism and 'anti-Zionism' cannot always be neatly separated..."
No, he's not. He's dead wrong.
Look, it's really not that hard, Richard. If you support the existence of a Jewish state in Palestine, you're a Zionist. If you don't, you're an anti-Zionist. You are either someone who believes that it is right and proper to have a sectarian, ethnocratic state in Palestine, or you aren't.
Richard King btw is the author of a book titled On Offence. I haven't read it, but let me say that if those who make a show of being offended are his subject, and he hasn't got a chapter or two or three on the mob who have made a career out of taking offence at anyone who looks sideways at Israel, aka the Israel lobby, then he needs to do his homework and put out a revised version NOW.
Be that as it may, I'll forgive him for that great intro. above.
As for Frederic Raphael, who, on investigation, turns out to be a novelist and screenwriter, I thought I'd listen to Phillip Adams' interview with the guy (Anti-Semitism then & now, Late Night Live, 26/11/15)
*...*
I heard him [Raphael] say that "Israel has behaved badly," which is based on the incredible assumption that a colonial-settler state which has taken someone else's land, sent its people packing, and refuses them re-entry because it'd mess with the preferred demographic, has the capacity to behave in any other way than badly.
And - *...* - I heard him refer to the "so-called occupied territories."
Without Phillip Adams, who just had to slip in at one point that he was a "philo-Semite," pulling the bugger up, FFS!
Friday, September 4, 2015
Zionzilla vs Uncle Sam: An Update
Iran Deal update from Philip Weiss (See my posts Israeli Desires vs American Interests (17/8/15) & Made in Israel: America's Next War 1&2 (18-19/8/15)):
"You've read it already, but we had to jump on the bandwagon. Today's news that [Senator] Barbara Mikulski [Dem] supports the Iran Deal has put President Obama over the top. Hurray. He has defeated Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Netanyahu's lobby to win the most important foreign policy shift of his administration. And achieve the biggest setback to the lobby's power in a generation. Now it's all about getting to closure: 41 votes, so that the Dems can filibuster the anti-agreement vote." ('Turning point' - Obama defeats Netanyahu & 'destroyers of hope' on Iran Deal!, mondoweiss.net 2/9/15)
So far so good, but the power of Israel over American politicians is still painfully obvious. Just look at Secretary of State, John Kerry's guarded reference to the above:
"... history may judge it as a turning point, a moment when the builders of stability seized the initiative from the destroyers of hope."
In translation: History may judge it as a moment when the US got Israel and its lobby (aka "the destroyers of hope") off its back.
But for how long?
Today's battle may be going Obama's way, but doing something about the big-spending Israel lobby's financial hold over US politicians will require an even bigger battle (war?), as the following grovel by the aforementioned Ms Mikulski indicates:
"For all my time in both the House and the Senate, I have been an unabashed and unwavering supporter of Israel. I have persistently supported the sanctions that brought Iran to the table. I have been insistent on foreign aid and military assistance to Israel that maintains its qualitative military edge on missile defense. With the horrors of the Holocaust in mind, I have been deeply committed to the need for a Jewish homeland, the State of Israel, and its inherent ability to defend itself. And for the United States to be an unwavering partner in Israel's defense. I have been and always will be committed to those principles."
IOW, she hasn't given a moment's thought to what the hell Israel is really all about, and has, therefore, helped ensure that "the destroyers of hope" have, for decades, effectively held the whip hand when it comes to US Middle East policy making.
And why is this?
Is it because she's stoked on the Old Testament and can't differentiate between Israelites and Israelis?
Is it because she once read Leon Uris' Exodus and never recovered?
Or is it because between 4/1/09 and 3/31/15 she received, as a politician, US$132,175 in pro-Israel (monetary & non-monetary) contributions. (See maplight.org)
As Mearsheimer & Walt have pointed out:
"The obvious way to reduce the lobby's influence... is campaign finance reform. Public financing of all elections would seriously weaken the link between the lobby and elected officials and make it easier for the latter to pressure Israel (or simply withdraw US support) when doing so would be in America's interest." (The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy, 2007, p 349)
Watch this space...
"You've read it already, but we had to jump on the bandwagon. Today's news that [Senator] Barbara Mikulski [Dem] supports the Iran Deal has put President Obama over the top. Hurray. He has defeated Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Netanyahu's lobby to win the most important foreign policy shift of his administration. And achieve the biggest setback to the lobby's power in a generation. Now it's all about getting to closure: 41 votes, so that the Dems can filibuster the anti-agreement vote." ('Turning point' - Obama defeats Netanyahu & 'destroyers of hope' on Iran Deal!, mondoweiss.net 2/9/15)
So far so good, but the power of Israel over American politicians is still painfully obvious. Just look at Secretary of State, John Kerry's guarded reference to the above:
"... history may judge it as a turning point, a moment when the builders of stability seized the initiative from the destroyers of hope."
In translation: History may judge it as a moment when the US got Israel and its lobby (aka "the destroyers of hope") off its back.
But for how long?
Today's battle may be going Obama's way, but doing something about the big-spending Israel lobby's financial hold over US politicians will require an even bigger battle (war?), as the following grovel by the aforementioned Ms Mikulski indicates:
"For all my time in both the House and the Senate, I have been an unabashed and unwavering supporter of Israel. I have persistently supported the sanctions that brought Iran to the table. I have been insistent on foreign aid and military assistance to Israel that maintains its qualitative military edge on missile defense. With the horrors of the Holocaust in mind, I have been deeply committed to the need for a Jewish homeland, the State of Israel, and its inherent ability to defend itself. And for the United States to be an unwavering partner in Israel's defense. I have been and always will be committed to those principles."
IOW, she hasn't given a moment's thought to what the hell Israel is really all about, and has, therefore, helped ensure that "the destroyers of hope" have, for decades, effectively held the whip hand when it comes to US Middle East policy making.
And why is this?
Is it because she's stoked on the Old Testament and can't differentiate between Israelites and Israelis?
Is it because she once read Leon Uris' Exodus and never recovered?
Or is it because between 4/1/09 and 3/31/15 she received, as a politician, US$132,175 in pro-Israel (monetary & non-monetary) contributions. (See maplight.org)
As Mearsheimer & Walt have pointed out:
"The obvious way to reduce the lobby's influence... is campaign finance reform. Public financing of all elections would seriously weaken the link between the lobby and elected officials and make it easier for the latter to pressure Israel (or simply withdraw US support) when doing so would be in America's interest." (The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy, 2007, p 349)
Watch this space...
Tuesday, August 11, 2015
Obama: No More Wars for Israel
The Iraq War theses of James Petras (The Power of Israel in the United States, 2006), John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt (The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy, 2007), and Stephen Sniegoski (The Transparent Cabal, 2008) have just been vindicated by Barack Obama. (My clarifications in brackets):
"Between now and the congressional vote in September, you're going to hear a lot of arguments against this deal, backed by tens of millions of dollars in advertising. [Hello, Israel Lobby!] And if the rhetoric in these ads, and the accompanying commentary, sounds familiar, it should - for many of the same people who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case against the Iran nuclear deal. [Hello, Ziocons!] Now, when I ran for President, 8 years ago as a candidate who had opposed the decision to go to war in Iraq, I said that America didn't just have to end that war - we had to end the mindset that got us there in the first place. [Hello, Ziocons!] It was a mindset characterized by a preference for military action over diplomacy; a mindset that put a premium on unilateral US action over the painstaking work of building international consensus; a mindset that exaggerated threats beyond what the intelligence supported." (Remarks by the President on the Iran Nuclear Deal, American University, Washington, DC, 5/8/15)
"Between now and the congressional vote in September, you're going to hear a lot of arguments against this deal, backed by tens of millions of dollars in advertising. [Hello, Israel Lobby!] And if the rhetoric in these ads, and the accompanying commentary, sounds familiar, it should - for many of the same people who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case against the Iran nuclear deal. [Hello, Ziocons!] Now, when I ran for President, 8 years ago as a candidate who had opposed the decision to go to war in Iraq, I said that America didn't just have to end that war - we had to end the mindset that got us there in the first place. [Hello, Ziocons!] It was a mindset characterized by a preference for military action over diplomacy; a mindset that put a premium on unilateral US action over the painstaking work of building international consensus; a mindset that exaggerated threats beyond what the intelligence supported." (Remarks by the President on the Iran Nuclear Deal, American University, Washington, DC, 5/8/15)
Tuesday, August 4, 2015
Lobbywhipped
Next year will be the 10th anniversary of the publication of one of the most important works ever written on American foreign policy, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy.
At the time, these two fearless, truth-telling American political scientists were accused of "gross exaggeration of the power of the 'lobby'," and of reviving "elements of classic anti-Jewish conspiracy theories... [namely] that Jews have excessive, overarching power..." (An anti-Jewish screed in scholarly guise, adl.org, 24/3/06)
In the meantime, the hold of the Israel lobby over Congress has only grown, with gobsmacking results like this:
"The American Israel Education Foundation (AIEF), the educational wing of hardline right-wing pro-Israel lobbying organization the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), is taking all but 3 freshmen US lawmakers on a tour of Israel, in hopes of turning them against the Iran nuclear deal... Congress has 60 days to review the Iran deal. AIEF/AIPAC is hoping to persuade US congresspeople to undermine and vote against the deal, although Obama has vowed to veto any attempt by the legislature to do so. Congress would need a two-thirds majority in order to override the president's veto." (AIPAC taking all but 3 freshmen Congresspeople to Israel in effort to sabotage Iran deal, Ben Norton, mondoweiss.net, 3/8/15)
So 57 out of 60 of recently elected US legislators simply haven't got what it takes to say no when the Israel lobby snaps its fingers.
God help America.
At the time, these two fearless, truth-telling American political scientists were accused of "gross exaggeration of the power of the 'lobby'," and of reviving "elements of classic anti-Jewish conspiracy theories... [namely] that Jews have excessive, overarching power..." (An anti-Jewish screed in scholarly guise, adl.org, 24/3/06)
In the meantime, the hold of the Israel lobby over Congress has only grown, with gobsmacking results like this:
"The American Israel Education Foundation (AIEF), the educational wing of hardline right-wing pro-Israel lobbying organization the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), is taking all but 3 freshmen US lawmakers on a tour of Israel, in hopes of turning them against the Iran nuclear deal... Congress has 60 days to review the Iran deal. AIEF/AIPAC is hoping to persuade US congresspeople to undermine and vote against the deal, although Obama has vowed to veto any attempt by the legislature to do so. Congress would need a two-thirds majority in order to override the president's veto." (AIPAC taking all but 3 freshmen Congresspeople to Israel in effort to sabotage Iran deal, Ben Norton, mondoweiss.net, 3/8/15)
So 57 out of 60 of recently elected US legislators simply haven't got what it takes to say no when the Israel lobby snaps its fingers.
God help America.
Monday, February 4, 2013
'One Dumb Thing'
"Chuck Hagel, President Obama's nominee to be secretary of defense, faced sharp and sometimes angry questioning from fellow Republicans... at a contentious confirmation hearing on Thursday that focused on his past statements on Iran, the influence of pro-Israel organizations in Washington and the Iraq war... One of the most hostile questioners was Senator [Lindsey] Graham of South Carolina, who told Mr Hagel to 'name one dumb thing we've been goaded into doing because of the pressure from the Israeli or Jewish lobby.' Mr Hagel, who in 2006 said that the 'Jewish lobby' intimidates Congress, could not." (Hagel has rough outing before ex-colleagues, Elizabeth Bumiller, The New York Times, 31/1/13)
Just "one dumb thing we've been goaded into doing because of the pressure from the Israeli lobby," eh?
No problem. How about this:
"On Friday night, the Senate passed by a 90-1 vote an AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee] drafted a resolution telling the president that containment of a nuclear Iran is not an option. If Iran passes Binyamin Netanyahu's 'red line', the United States must go to war. As a US President, Barack Obama opposes automatic wars. He wants to keep all his options open. But the Senate gets its orders from AIPAC and AIPAC gets its orders from Netanyahu..." (AIPAC salutes itself for senate passage of its Iran War Bill 90-1, mjayrosenberg.com, 24/9/12)
Senator Graham, I should add, was instrumental in passing this Israel lobby-authored 'lets-go-to-war-again-for-Israel' bill. As AIPAC's press release of 23/9/12 put it:
"AIPAC praises the efforts of Sens. Graham (R-SC), Lieberman (I-CT) and Casey (D-PA), as well as the additional cosponsors, to get this resolution passed." (ibid)
So why does Senator Graham do such dumb things? Does it just come naturally? Well no, not exactly. Fact is, guys like Senator Graham need a little coaching, at least initially. Perhaps Harry Lonsdale's experience can shed some light on the matter:
"Harry Lonsdale, the Democratic candidate who ran unsuccessfully against Senator Mark Hatfield (R-OR) in 1990, has described his own visit to AIPAC headquarters during that campaign. 'The word that I was pro-Israel got around,' he writes. 'I found myself invited to AIPAC in Washington, DC, fairly early in the campaign, for 'discussions'. It was an experience I will never forget. It wasn't enough that I was pro-Israel. I was given a list of vital topics and quizzed (read grilled) for my specific opinion on each. Actually, I was told what my opinion must be, and exactly what words I was to use to express those opinions in public... Shortly after that encounter at AIPAC, I was sent a list of American supporters of Israel... that I was free to call for campaign contributions. I called; they gave, from Florida to Alaska.'" (quoted in The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy, John Mearsheimer & Stephen Walt, 2007 p 155)
Just "one dumb thing we've been goaded into doing because of the pressure from the Israeli lobby," eh?
No problem. How about this:
"On Friday night, the Senate passed by a 90-1 vote an AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee] drafted a resolution telling the president that containment of a nuclear Iran is not an option. If Iran passes Binyamin Netanyahu's 'red line', the United States must go to war. As a US President, Barack Obama opposes automatic wars. He wants to keep all his options open. But the Senate gets its orders from AIPAC and AIPAC gets its orders from Netanyahu..." (AIPAC salutes itself for senate passage of its Iran War Bill 90-1, mjayrosenberg.com, 24/9/12)
Senator Graham, I should add, was instrumental in passing this Israel lobby-authored 'lets-go-to-war-again-for-Israel' bill. As AIPAC's press release of 23/9/12 put it:
"AIPAC praises the efforts of Sens. Graham (R-SC), Lieberman (I-CT) and Casey (D-PA), as well as the additional cosponsors, to get this resolution passed." (ibid)
So why does Senator Graham do such dumb things? Does it just come naturally? Well no, not exactly. Fact is, guys like Senator Graham need a little coaching, at least initially. Perhaps Harry Lonsdale's experience can shed some light on the matter:
"Harry Lonsdale, the Democratic candidate who ran unsuccessfully against Senator Mark Hatfield (R-OR) in 1990, has described his own visit to AIPAC headquarters during that campaign. 'The word that I was pro-Israel got around,' he writes. 'I found myself invited to AIPAC in Washington, DC, fairly early in the campaign, for 'discussions'. It was an experience I will never forget. It wasn't enough that I was pro-Israel. I was given a list of vital topics and quizzed (read grilled) for my specific opinion on each. Actually, I was told what my opinion must be, and exactly what words I was to use to express those opinions in public... Shortly after that encounter at AIPAC, I was sent a list of American supporters of Israel... that I was free to call for campaign contributions. I called; they gave, from Florida to Alaska.'" (quoted in The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy, John Mearsheimer & Stephen Walt, 2007 p 155)
Sunday, December 9, 2012
The Prisoner of Zion
Two items appearing recently in the print media speak to the peculiar rigidity of the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, when it comes to the Middle East conflict, the second, significantly, composed (or approved) by Gillard herself exclusively for inclusion in the Australian Jewish News:
"Even if Gillard's forced capitulation on the UN vote on Palestine does not change votes in caucus, it will go down as a seminal episode in her prime ministership. Sources describe the cabinet discussion on the Monday night, when 10 of her cabinet ministers spoke against her position of a no vote against Palestine, as respectful. They were gobsmacked when at the end of it Gillard summed up by telling them that even though what they said was fair enough, this was not an issue for cabinet to decide, it was a question of prime ministerial prerogative. She told them she would exercise that prerogative to deliver Australia's vote against Palestine. Ministers were appalled, first, because she had failed to listen; second, that she was seemingly oblivious to the danger she faced; and, third, that there was only one view that mattered: hers." (PM's Praetorian Guards are revolting, Niki Savva, The Australian, 6/12/12)
"It's widely known that the debate within the Labor Party on how Australia should vote was a vigorous one - befitting the significance of the issue pending before the world. But it is important to distinguish between what was debated within the Labor Party and what is always accepted without debate. I am proud of my party's historic friendship with Israel. Nothing will ever change that and we will be proud and firm friends of Israel in the future." ('Our friendship with Israel is beyond debate', Julia Gillard, AJN, 7/12/12)
Is this not one of the great mysteries of Australian political life? Here is the leader of a party that has jettisoned just about every conceivable principle it ever stood for, to the extent that no one knows anymore quite what it stands for, telling two in-group audiences - not the rest of us note - that a supposed friendship with a foreign power, and not just any foreign power but a vicious, occupying apartheid state, is beyond debate.
Why this extraordinary degree of dogma, reminiscent of nothing so much as the doctrine of papal infallibility, this adamantine refusal to openly debate without fear or favour? Did Gillard climb into this ideological straitjacket unaided? What is the nature of its ties and clasps that none of our so-called intellectuals dare mention? Where is Australia's John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt?
"Even if Gillard's forced capitulation on the UN vote on Palestine does not change votes in caucus, it will go down as a seminal episode in her prime ministership. Sources describe the cabinet discussion on the Monday night, when 10 of her cabinet ministers spoke against her position of a no vote against Palestine, as respectful. They were gobsmacked when at the end of it Gillard summed up by telling them that even though what they said was fair enough, this was not an issue for cabinet to decide, it was a question of prime ministerial prerogative. She told them she would exercise that prerogative to deliver Australia's vote against Palestine. Ministers were appalled, first, because she had failed to listen; second, that she was seemingly oblivious to the danger she faced; and, third, that there was only one view that mattered: hers." (PM's Praetorian Guards are revolting, Niki Savva, The Australian, 6/12/12)
"It's widely known that the debate within the Labor Party on how Australia should vote was a vigorous one - befitting the significance of the issue pending before the world. But it is important to distinguish between what was debated within the Labor Party and what is always accepted without debate. I am proud of my party's historic friendship with Israel. Nothing will ever change that and we will be proud and firm friends of Israel in the future." ('Our friendship with Israel is beyond debate', Julia Gillard, AJN, 7/12/12)
Is this not one of the great mysteries of Australian political life? Here is the leader of a party that has jettisoned just about every conceivable principle it ever stood for, to the extent that no one knows anymore quite what it stands for, telling two in-group audiences - not the rest of us note - that a supposed friendship with a foreign power, and not just any foreign power but a vicious, occupying apartheid state, is beyond debate.
Why this extraordinary degree of dogma, reminiscent of nothing so much as the doctrine of papal infallibility, this adamantine refusal to openly debate without fear or favour? Did Gillard climb into this ideological straitjacket unaided? What is the nature of its ties and clasps that none of our so-called intellectuals dare mention? Where is Australia's John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt?
Thursday, December 6, 2012
Julia the Downhearted
Cry me a river:
"One of the things that I suppose has made it very difficult for me is that I am just so downhearted about the absence of any progress towards peace... Whether it [the UN resolution] was carried or whether it was lost, nothing is going to change on the ground and nothing is going to change in the peace process and that is what is so downheartening about it all... Have a look at the Congress legislation and what is self-actuating out of this... It's not President Obama's choice. What happened in UNESCO when they passed the Palestinian resolution [last year] was that they [the US] stopped funding UNESCO... That is why I actually think that this doesn't strengthen the hands of the moderate Palestinians. I actually think it will do the complete reverse which is why I am kind of downcast about it." (Quoted in Defiant PM digs in on Palestine, Geoff Kitney & John Kerin, The Australian Financial Review, 30/11/12)
Downhearted? What bullshit! A person with no heart describing herself as downhearted? Give me a break: "Julia Gillard has declared the best way to help people on Newstart was to provide a strong economy after 2 Labor senators broke ranks with a majority Senate report and called for a boost to the single rate of the dole." (PM dodges commitment to Newstart boost, Lanai Vasek, The Australian, 3/12/12) [On the subject of Gillard's 'heart' see my 16/10/11 post What You See Is What You Get.]
Nothing is going to change on the ground? If only! Surely, as Prime Minister, Gillard cannot possibly be unaware that her soulmate in Jerusalem gave the thumbs up to another 3,000 settler homes in and around the city in retaliation for the UN vote. Or that prior to that "the [Israeli] government had issued tenders for the construction of 2366 units in 2012, more than twice the number built in the previous 3 years combined."* (See Israel's growing settlements are fast approaching 'point of no return', Jodi Rudoren, New York Times/Sydney Morning Herald, 3/3/12)
And if, solely for the sake of argument mind you, Gillard was really so downcast about events on the ground in occupied Palestine, did she ever speak to any of her Zionist soulmates about the matter? Did she, for example, have a word with Albert Dadon while supping with him in his flash new Italian restaurant in St Kilda in June?* Or take it up with Netanyahu minister Avi Dichter, while dancing the Hora with him in Sydney in December 2009, when he told there was no way, Jose, Israel was returning to the 1967 borders?** Or with the organisers of the Jewish National Fund Gala(h) Dinner that she attended in Melbourne in June 2008?*** Or...
Have a look at Congress? Can she be serious? Does Gillard really not understand what drives the US Congress in this matter? Such ignorance alone would be enough to render her unfit for leadership. The only other interpretation possible is that she's playing dumb, an equally damning state of affairs for a prime minister. Whichever direction she's coming from - sheer stupidity or guile or both - we're presented here with the incredible spectacle of a politician who is as putty in the hands of Australia's Israel lobby (her claim of coming to this matter "with my own perspective" notwithstanding) telling the public to look at another bunch of politicians who are as putty in the hands of their own Israel lobby - as Mearsheimer & Walt's classic, The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy makes clear:
"Not only does [the Israel lobby] exert significant influence over the policy process in Democratic and Republican administrations alike, but it is even more powerful on Capitol Hill. The journalist Michael Massing reports that a congressional staffer sympathetic to Israel told him, 'We can count on well over half the House - 250 to 300 members - to do reflexively whatever AIPAC wants.' Similarly, Steven Rosen, the former AIPAC official who has been indicted for allegedly passing classified government documents to Israel, illustrated AIPAC's power for the New Yorker's Jeffrey Goldberg by putting a napkin in front of him and saying, 'In 24 hours, we could have the signatures of 70 senators on this napkin.' These are not idle boasts. As will become clear, when issues relating to Israel come to the fore, Congress almost always votes to endorse the lobby's positions, and usually in overwhelming numbers."
No, she can't possibly go there for obvious reasons. And so she blames the Palestinians instead: "I actually think the adoption of this resolution will create further problems in terms of the peace process."
Allow me to conclude by drawing your attention to the following highly perceptive letter in Monday's Sydney Morning Herald. It encapsulates beautifully the mess that a leader can get herself into when, for whatever reason, she subordinates her country's interests to those of an apartheid state in full swing:
"So the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, averted a 'public humiliation' by abandoning her position on the Palestinian Authority's application for observer state status at the UN, demonstrating her 'poor judgment and feeble authority' within her party ('PM lives to fight another day', December 1-2). If this circumstance was a 'rare and real humiliation' for the Prime Minister, imagine then the scale of her humiliation and that of our government had they opposed the Palestinian proposal, only to wake-up to Saturday's announcement by Israel that it is proceeding with the expansion of Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank with the construction of another 3000 housing units. It would seem that the Prime Minister should not only be eternally grateful to the Labor caucus for having saved her from being on the wrong side of history, but also for having prevented her further humiliation at the hands of Israel, as a result of its latest attack on the Palestinian people's struggle for self-determination and the so-called 'peace process'." John Richardson, Wallagoot
[*See my 7/6/12 post Spilling the Cannellini Beans; **See my 11/12/09 post Just Do It, Bitch!; ***See my 29/6/08 post Soft on Israel]
"One of the things that I suppose has made it very difficult for me is that I am just so downhearted about the absence of any progress towards peace... Whether it [the UN resolution] was carried or whether it was lost, nothing is going to change on the ground and nothing is going to change in the peace process and that is what is so downheartening about it all... Have a look at the Congress legislation and what is self-actuating out of this... It's not President Obama's choice. What happened in UNESCO when they passed the Palestinian resolution [last year] was that they [the US] stopped funding UNESCO... That is why I actually think that this doesn't strengthen the hands of the moderate Palestinians. I actually think it will do the complete reverse which is why I am kind of downcast about it." (Quoted in Defiant PM digs in on Palestine, Geoff Kitney & John Kerin, The Australian Financial Review, 30/11/12)
Downhearted? What bullshit! A person with no heart describing herself as downhearted? Give me a break: "Julia Gillard has declared the best way to help people on Newstart was to provide a strong economy after 2 Labor senators broke ranks with a majority Senate report and called for a boost to the single rate of the dole." (PM dodges commitment to Newstart boost, Lanai Vasek, The Australian, 3/12/12) [On the subject of Gillard's 'heart' see my 16/10/11 post What You See Is What You Get.]
Nothing is going to change on the ground? If only! Surely, as Prime Minister, Gillard cannot possibly be unaware that her soulmate in Jerusalem gave the thumbs up to another 3,000 settler homes in and around the city in retaliation for the UN vote. Or that prior to that "the [Israeli] government had issued tenders for the construction of 2366 units in 2012, more than twice the number built in the previous 3 years combined."* (See Israel's growing settlements are fast approaching 'point of no return', Jodi Rudoren, New York Times/Sydney Morning Herald, 3/3/12)
And if, solely for the sake of argument mind you, Gillard was really so downcast about events on the ground in occupied Palestine, did she ever speak to any of her Zionist soulmates about the matter? Did she, for example, have a word with Albert Dadon while supping with him in his flash new Italian restaurant in St Kilda in June?* Or take it up with Netanyahu minister Avi Dichter, while dancing the Hora with him in Sydney in December 2009, when he told there was no way, Jose, Israel was returning to the 1967 borders?** Or with the organisers of the Jewish National Fund Gala(h) Dinner that she attended in Melbourne in June 2008?*** Or...
Have a look at Congress? Can she be serious? Does Gillard really not understand what drives the US Congress in this matter? Such ignorance alone would be enough to render her unfit for leadership. The only other interpretation possible is that she's playing dumb, an equally damning state of affairs for a prime minister. Whichever direction she's coming from - sheer stupidity or guile or both - we're presented here with the incredible spectacle of a politician who is as putty in the hands of Australia's Israel lobby (her claim of coming to this matter "with my own perspective" notwithstanding) telling the public to look at another bunch of politicians who are as putty in the hands of their own Israel lobby - as Mearsheimer & Walt's classic, The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy makes clear:
"Not only does [the Israel lobby] exert significant influence over the policy process in Democratic and Republican administrations alike, but it is even more powerful on Capitol Hill. The journalist Michael Massing reports that a congressional staffer sympathetic to Israel told him, 'We can count on well over half the House - 250 to 300 members - to do reflexively whatever AIPAC wants.' Similarly, Steven Rosen, the former AIPAC official who has been indicted for allegedly passing classified government documents to Israel, illustrated AIPAC's power for the New Yorker's Jeffrey Goldberg by putting a napkin in front of him and saying, 'In 24 hours, we could have the signatures of 70 senators on this napkin.' These are not idle boasts. As will become clear, when issues relating to Israel come to the fore, Congress almost always votes to endorse the lobby's positions, and usually in overwhelming numbers."
No, she can't possibly go there for obvious reasons. And so she blames the Palestinians instead: "I actually think the adoption of this resolution will create further problems in terms of the peace process."
Allow me to conclude by drawing your attention to the following highly perceptive letter in Monday's Sydney Morning Herald. It encapsulates beautifully the mess that a leader can get herself into when, for whatever reason, she subordinates her country's interests to those of an apartheid state in full swing:
"So the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, averted a 'public humiliation' by abandoning her position on the Palestinian Authority's application for observer state status at the UN, demonstrating her 'poor judgment and feeble authority' within her party ('PM lives to fight another day', December 1-2). If this circumstance was a 'rare and real humiliation' for the Prime Minister, imagine then the scale of her humiliation and that of our government had they opposed the Palestinian proposal, only to wake-up to Saturday's announcement by Israel that it is proceeding with the expansion of Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank with the construction of another 3000 housing units. It would seem that the Prime Minister should not only be eternally grateful to the Labor caucus for having saved her from being on the wrong side of history, but also for having prevented her further humiliation at the hands of Israel, as a result of its latest attack on the Palestinian people's struggle for self-determination and the so-called 'peace process'." John Richardson, Wallagoot
[*See my 7/6/12 post Spilling the Cannellini Beans; **See my 11/12/09 post Just Do It, Bitch!; ***See my 29/6/08 post Soft on Israel]
Monday, July 2, 2012
Massacre Inc.
"America is about to enter a presidential election year... The candidates will inevitably differ on various domestic issues - health care, abortion, gay marriage, taxes, education, immigration - and spirited debates are certain to erupt on a host of foreign policy questions as well... Yet on one subject, we can be equally confident that the candidates will speak with one voice. In 2008, as in previous election years, serious candidates for the highest office in the land will go to considerable lengths to express their deep personal commitment to one country - Israel - as well as their determination to maintain unyielding US support for the Jewish state."
So begins the introduction to Mearsheimer & Walt's 2007 classic, The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy.
As in the US, so too, unfortunately, in Australia. Here is merely the most recent example:
"The House of Representatives rose in unison on Tuesday in support of a motion calling on the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to observe a minute of silence at the London Games for the 11 Israeli victims of the Munich massacre [of 1972]. The move comes less than a month after an open letter from The Australian Jewish News beseeching the IOC to hold a memorial at the 2012 Games attracted a raft of high-profile signatories, including Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Leader of the Opposition Tony Abbott." (Parliament rises for Munich, 29/6/12)
Nothing like a shared ignorance, sycophancy, and crying need for campaign funds to unite Lib and Lab. And nothing like our Israel lobby (and its parliamentary operatives, Paul Fletcher (Lib), Josh Frydenberg (Lib), Mike Kelly (Lab), and Michael Danby (Lab), who moved the above bi-partisan motion) to pull a stunt like this on behalf of a state whose very road to statehood was paved with the massacres of Palestinians and other Arabs, and whose history ever since has been studded with them.
I merely recall the one which followed, within mere days, the Munich massacre:
"When Palestinian terrorists killed 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics of 1972, Syria bore the brunt of Israel's eye-for-eye reprisals. It was, of course, more like 20 eyes for one. For at least 200 people, many of them women and children, and possibly as many as 500, died in simultaneous air attacks on nine separate targets. The Phantoms and Skyhawks swooped on the suburban Damascus resort of al-Hama; the bombs fell indiscriminately on Palestinians in their hillside dwellings and on Syrians, in their cars or strolling by the river Barada on their weekend outing. Survivors recounted how they were machine-gunned as they ran for cover." (The Gun & The Olive Branch: The Roots of Violence in the Middle East, David Hirst, 1977, p 251)
But don't ever expect any of our parliamentary sheep to stand up for these people.
To inject a little perspective here, allow me to adapt the words of Edward John Eyre (written in 1845) about the internecine warfare which arose when European settlers invaded Aboriginal Australia in the 19th century: Could blood answer blood, perhaps for every drop of Israeli's shed by Palestinian natives, a torrent of theirs, by Israeli hands, would crimson the earth. (See my 12/6/08 post Pemulwuy in Palestine.)
So begins the introduction to Mearsheimer & Walt's 2007 classic, The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy.
As in the US, so too, unfortunately, in Australia. Here is merely the most recent example:
"The House of Representatives rose in unison on Tuesday in support of a motion calling on the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to observe a minute of silence at the London Games for the 11 Israeli victims of the Munich massacre [of 1972]. The move comes less than a month after an open letter from The Australian Jewish News beseeching the IOC to hold a memorial at the 2012 Games attracted a raft of high-profile signatories, including Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Leader of the Opposition Tony Abbott." (Parliament rises for Munich, 29/6/12)
Nothing like a shared ignorance, sycophancy, and crying need for campaign funds to unite Lib and Lab. And nothing like our Israel lobby (and its parliamentary operatives, Paul Fletcher (Lib), Josh Frydenberg (Lib), Mike Kelly (Lab), and Michael Danby (Lab), who moved the above bi-partisan motion) to pull a stunt like this on behalf of a state whose very road to statehood was paved with the massacres of Palestinians and other Arabs, and whose history ever since has been studded with them.
I merely recall the one which followed, within mere days, the Munich massacre:
"When Palestinian terrorists killed 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics of 1972, Syria bore the brunt of Israel's eye-for-eye reprisals. It was, of course, more like 20 eyes for one. For at least 200 people, many of them women and children, and possibly as many as 500, died in simultaneous air attacks on nine separate targets. The Phantoms and Skyhawks swooped on the suburban Damascus resort of al-Hama; the bombs fell indiscriminately on Palestinians in their hillside dwellings and on Syrians, in their cars or strolling by the river Barada on their weekend outing. Survivors recounted how they were machine-gunned as they ran for cover." (The Gun & The Olive Branch: The Roots of Violence in the Middle East, David Hirst, 1977, p 251)
But don't ever expect any of our parliamentary sheep to stand up for these people.
To inject a little perspective here, allow me to adapt the words of Edward John Eyre (written in 1845) about the internecine warfare which arose when European settlers invaded Aboriginal Australia in the 19th century: Could blood answer blood, perhaps for every drop of Israeli's shed by Palestinian natives, a torrent of theirs, by Israeli hands, would crimson the earth. (See my 12/6/08 post Pemulwuy in Palestine.)
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Don't Mention the Lobby!
Yet another (WikiLeaks-inspired) gem from Australia's 'most influential foreign affairs commentator', Greg (Jerusalem Prize) Sheridan:
"One of the clear revelations from these leaked cables is that numerous Arab leaders have asked the Americans to take military action to stop Iran getting nuclear weapons. One might note that this does rather give the lie to the insane notion - peddled not least by US academics John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt - that an all-powerful Jewish lobby is the only group in the world so exercised about a nuclear Iran as to consider supporting military action." (Cables expose Arab states' hypocrisy over Iran, The Australian, 4/12/10)
While one is busy noting along with Sheridan, one might also care to note that Sheridan completely misrepresents Mearsheimer and Walt.
At no point in their groundbreaking book (about the Israel, not Jewish lobby as Sheridan slants it) do M&W talk of an all-powerful Jewish lobby. If anything, they understate their thesis, venturing no further than to claim that the Israel lobby has a "significant influence on American foreign policy, especially in the Middle East." (The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy, 2007, p 6)
Regarding Sheridan's accusation that they peddle an insane notion that the Israel lobby is the only group in the world so exercised about a nuclear Iran as to consider supporting military action, M&W's position is far more nuanced than Sheridan's caricature allows, factoring in both the United States and Iran's Arab neighbours: "The United States, Israel, and Iran's Arab neighbors, including many of America's Gulf allies, have an independent interest in keeping Iran non-nuclear and preventing it from becoming a regional hegemon. Washington would be committed to keeping Iran in check even if Israel did not exist, so as to prevent the other Gulf states from being conquered or cowed by Tehran."
However, "[o]ver the past 15 years, Israel and the lobby have pushed the United States to pursue a strategically unwise policy toward Iran. In particular, they are the central forces today [2007] behind all the talk in the Bush administration and on Capitol Hill about using military force to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities. Unfortunately, such rhetoric makes it harder, not easier, to stop Iran from going nuclear. During the 1990s, Israel and its American supporters encouraged the Clinton administration to pursue a confrontational policy toward Iran, even though Iran was interested in improving relations between the two countries. That same pattern was at play again in the early years of the Bush administration, as well as in December 2006, when Israel and the lobby made a concerted effort to undermine the Iraq Study Group's recommendation that President Bush negotiate with Iran. Were it not for the lobby, the US would almost certainly have a different and more effective Iran policy." (ibid p 282)
We now know, thanks to WikiLeaks, that some Arab leaders have privately urged war to stymie Iran's nuclear program (See my 4/12/10 post WikiLeaks 2). However, to illustrate the absurdity of Sheridan's implication that these US clients are somehow the Israel lobby's equal in pushing for a war against Iran, read the following extract from M&W, substituting the Gulf Cooperation Council for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and try keeping a straight face while doing so: "Perhaps the best evidence of AIPAC's influence on US policy toward Iran was revealed in mid-March 2007, when Congress was attempting to attach a provision to a Pentagon spending bill that would have required President Bush to get its approval before attacking Iran. In light of what has happened in the Iraq war, this was a popular measure on Capitol Hill and appeared likely to gain approval. It was also consistent with Congress's consitutional authority. But AIPAC was firmly opposed, because it saw the legislation as effectively taking the military option against Iran off the table. It went to work in the halls of Congress, and with the help of a handful of pro-Israel representatives... the provision was removed from the spending bill. One month later, when Congressman Michael Capuano (D-MA) was asked why the language on Iran was stripped out of the bill, he answered with one word: 'AIPAC'. Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) offered the same assessment." (ibid p 301)
Frankly, I don't believe for a moment Sheridan's even read M&W.
As the Australian corporate media's leading Israel advocate, Sheridan never misses an opportunity to burnish Israel's image. Hence we read: "[T]he cables show the weakness, one might even say the hypocrisy, of much Arab politics. The only Middle Eastern leader who seems to talk about Iran in private in exactly the same way as he talks about them in public is Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu."
Typically, he's not interested in why: While polls reveal a majority of Israelis see Iran as a threat and support an attack on it, a majority in the Arab world are favorably disposed toward Iran's nuclear program and see Israel and the US as the primary threat. (2010 Arab Public Opinion Poll) It is understandable, therefore, that while Arab leaders aligned with the US are prepared to sing in private the kind of anti-Iranian tunes they know American diplomats want to hear, mindful that the Arab street is humming a decidedly different tune, they wouldn't dare do so in public. Certainly, none of them seem inclined to join in with Israel's sabre-rattling.
Oh, and speaking of WikiLeaks and a certain all-powerful/ significantly influential/ whatever lobby, how's this for an admission of who really rules the Middle Eastern roost: "Israel has been largely untroubled by the leaks because US views on key Middle East issues are so close to its own." (Outrage, admiration & indifference: Responses on WikiLeaks from world leaders depend on their relationship with the US, Sydney Morning Herald, 11/12/10)
"One of the clear revelations from these leaked cables is that numerous Arab leaders have asked the Americans to take military action to stop Iran getting nuclear weapons. One might note that this does rather give the lie to the insane notion - peddled not least by US academics John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt - that an all-powerful Jewish lobby is the only group in the world so exercised about a nuclear Iran as to consider supporting military action." (Cables expose Arab states' hypocrisy over Iran, The Australian, 4/12/10)
While one is busy noting along with Sheridan, one might also care to note that Sheridan completely misrepresents Mearsheimer and Walt.
At no point in their groundbreaking book (about the Israel, not Jewish lobby as Sheridan slants it) do M&W talk of an all-powerful Jewish lobby. If anything, they understate their thesis, venturing no further than to claim that the Israel lobby has a "significant influence on American foreign policy, especially in the Middle East." (The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy, 2007, p 6)
Regarding Sheridan's accusation that they peddle an insane notion that the Israel lobby is the only group in the world so exercised about a nuclear Iran as to consider supporting military action, M&W's position is far more nuanced than Sheridan's caricature allows, factoring in both the United States and Iran's Arab neighbours: "The United States, Israel, and Iran's Arab neighbors, including many of America's Gulf allies, have an independent interest in keeping Iran non-nuclear and preventing it from becoming a regional hegemon. Washington would be committed to keeping Iran in check even if Israel did not exist, so as to prevent the other Gulf states from being conquered or cowed by Tehran."
However, "[o]ver the past 15 years, Israel and the lobby have pushed the United States to pursue a strategically unwise policy toward Iran. In particular, they are the central forces today [2007] behind all the talk in the Bush administration and on Capitol Hill about using military force to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities. Unfortunately, such rhetoric makes it harder, not easier, to stop Iran from going nuclear. During the 1990s, Israel and its American supporters encouraged the Clinton administration to pursue a confrontational policy toward Iran, even though Iran was interested in improving relations between the two countries. That same pattern was at play again in the early years of the Bush administration, as well as in December 2006, when Israel and the lobby made a concerted effort to undermine the Iraq Study Group's recommendation that President Bush negotiate with Iran. Were it not for the lobby, the US would almost certainly have a different and more effective Iran policy." (ibid p 282)
We now know, thanks to WikiLeaks, that some Arab leaders have privately urged war to stymie Iran's nuclear program (See my 4/12/10 post WikiLeaks 2). However, to illustrate the absurdity of Sheridan's implication that these US clients are somehow the Israel lobby's equal in pushing for a war against Iran, read the following extract from M&W, substituting the Gulf Cooperation Council for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and try keeping a straight face while doing so: "Perhaps the best evidence of AIPAC's influence on US policy toward Iran was revealed in mid-March 2007, when Congress was attempting to attach a provision to a Pentagon spending bill that would have required President Bush to get its approval before attacking Iran. In light of what has happened in the Iraq war, this was a popular measure on Capitol Hill and appeared likely to gain approval. It was also consistent with Congress's consitutional authority. But AIPAC was firmly opposed, because it saw the legislation as effectively taking the military option against Iran off the table. It went to work in the halls of Congress, and with the help of a handful of pro-Israel representatives... the provision was removed from the spending bill. One month later, when Congressman Michael Capuano (D-MA) was asked why the language on Iran was stripped out of the bill, he answered with one word: 'AIPAC'. Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) offered the same assessment." (ibid p 301)
Frankly, I don't believe for a moment Sheridan's even read M&W.
As the Australian corporate media's leading Israel advocate, Sheridan never misses an opportunity to burnish Israel's image. Hence we read: "[T]he cables show the weakness, one might even say the hypocrisy, of much Arab politics. The only Middle Eastern leader who seems to talk about Iran in private in exactly the same way as he talks about them in public is Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu."
Typically, he's not interested in why: While polls reveal a majority of Israelis see Iran as a threat and support an attack on it, a majority in the Arab world are favorably disposed toward Iran's nuclear program and see Israel and the US as the primary threat. (2010 Arab Public Opinion Poll) It is understandable, therefore, that while Arab leaders aligned with the US are prepared to sing in private the kind of anti-Iranian tunes they know American diplomats want to hear, mindful that the Arab street is humming a decidedly different tune, they wouldn't dare do so in public. Certainly, none of them seem inclined to join in with Israel's sabre-rattling.
Oh, and speaking of WikiLeaks and a certain all-powerful/ significantly influential/ whatever lobby, how's this for an admission of who really rules the Middle Eastern roost: "Israel has been largely untroubled by the leaks because US views on key Middle East issues are so close to its own." (Outrage, admiration & indifference: Responses on WikiLeaks from world leaders depend on their relationship with the US, Sydney Morning Herald, 11/12/10)
Thursday, February 25, 2010
The Three of Us
"In early winter [2002], an incident occurred that was seared into my memory. A coworker and I were suddenly directed to go down to the Mall entrance [of the Pentagon] to pick up some Israeli generals. Post-9/11 rules required one escort for every 3 visitors, and there were 6 or 7 of them waiting. The Navy lieutenant commander and I hustled down. Before we could apologize for the delay, the leader of the pack surged ahead, his colleagues in close formation, leaving us to double-time behind the group as they sped to Undersecretary [Douglas] Feith's office on the 4th floor. Two thoughts crossed our minds: are we following close enough to get credit for escorting them, and do they really know where they are going? We did get credit, and they did know. Once in Feith's waiting room, the leader continued to speed to Feith's closed door. An alert secretary saw this coming and had leapt from her desk to block the door. 'Mr Feith has a visitor. It will only be a few more minutes'. The leader craned his neck to look around the secretary's head as he demanded, 'Who is in there with him?' This minor crisis of curiosity past, I noticed the security sign-in roster. Our habit, up until a few weeks before this incident, was not to sign in senior vistors like ambassadors. But about once a year, the security inspectors send out a warning letter that they are coming to inspect records. As a result, sign-in rosters were laid out, visible and used. I knew this because in the previous 2 weeks I watched this explanation being awkwardly presented to several North African ambassadors as they signed in for the first time and wondered why and why now. Given all this and seeing the sign-in roster, I asked the secretary, 'Do you want these guys to sign in?' She raised her hands, both palms toward me, and waved frantically as she shook her head. 'No, no, no, it is not necessary at all'. Her body language told me that I had committed a faux pas for even asking the question. My fellow escort and I chatted on the way back to our office about how the generals knew where they were going (most foreign visitors to the 5-sided asylum don't) and how the generals didn't have to sign in. I felt a bit dirtied by the whole thing and couldn't stop comparing that experience to the grace and gentility of the Moroccan, Tunisian, and Algerian ambassadors with whom I worked." (Open door policy, Lt Col Karen Kwiatkowski, amconmag.com, 19/1/04)
Speaking of nameless, faceless Israelis with seemingly unfettered access to the highest levels of US decision-making, check out the following news report, which to my knowledge, typically, did not make it into the ms Australian media:
"In his recent testimony to the UK Committee investigating the Iraq war, British Prime minister Tony Blair admitted that Israeli officials influenced and participated in the decision by the US and UK governments to attack Iraq in 2003. During testimony regarding his meetings in Texas with then-US President George W Bush in 2002, Blair stated, 'As I recall that discussion, it was less to do with specifics about what we were going to do on Iraq or, indeed, the Middle East, because the Israel issue was a big, big issue at the time. I think, in fact, I remember, actually, there may have been conversations that we had even with Israelis, the two of us, whilst we were there. So that was a major part of all this'." (British PM: Israeli officials were part of decision to invade Iraq, Saeed Bannoura, IMEMC News, 20/2/10)
Blair's shifty and tantalising mention of Israeli officials at his meetings with Bush prompted Professor Stephen Walt, co-author of The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy, to cite his words as further proof of one of the book's key findings - that "[p]ressure from Israel and the lobby" was "a critical element" in the Bush administration's decision to attack Iraq in March 2003. (Israel Lobby, p 230) This, of course, was like a red rag to a bull for Israel's hasbara peddlers, hence the pre-emptive publication in the February 18 Age of The Israel lobby myth revived again, by Dvir Abramovich, director of the Centre for Jewish History & Culture at the University of Melbourne.
Predictably, while Abramovich finds some wriggle room in Blair's testimony - "[A] close reading of what Blair actually said ('the Israel issue was a big, big issue at the time') reveals that he was referring to Israel's actions in the West Bank during Operation Defensive Shield, not to the decision to invade Iraq" - he conveniently omits Blair's 2nd (conversations between Bush, Blair and the Israelis) and 3rd sentences (those conversations being a major part of all this), with their suggestion that these conversations had more to do with Operation Iraqi Freedom than Israel's mugging of the West Bank, Operation Defensive Shield.
The full story of Israeli involvement in the war on Iraq is still to be told, with missing pieces like Blair's (and Janis Karpinski's recent reiteration of Israeli agents in Abu Ghraib) popping up from time to time. I've already posted some of Mearsheimer & Walt's citations of Israeli cheerleading in the lead up to the war (Greg Sheridan: Conjuror Extraordinaire, 1/4/08). And I've also posted on Stephen J Sniegoski's superb study The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, & the National Interest of Israel (Absent-Minded Professors Inadvertently Set Iraq Ablaze, 22/12/08). Sniegoski's discussion of active Israeli involvement in the decision-making process that led to the Bush/Blair war on Iraq helps place Blair's (and Kwiatkowski's) comments in context:
"Returning to the role of the Office of Special Plans (OSP) [created by Wolfowitz and Feith in August 2002]: as a result of a FBI probe of Israeli spying in the US (ongoing since 1999), which was leaked to the public in... 2004, it came out that Israeli agents had direct contact with members of the OSP. In essence, it was not simply that individuals in the OSP were pro-Israel, but that some of them might be conspirators in a clandestine operation launched by Sharon's Likud Party; they were, as Robert Dreyfuss called them, 'agents of influence' for a foreign government. The spotlight shifted to the OSP because the FBI, in its probe of Israeli spying, observed OSP analyst Larry Franklin meeting with an Israeli official in the presence of two officials from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). In October 2005, Franklin plead guilty to the charge of having turned over highly classified intelligence documents to an Israeli government official and to members of AIPAC, who in turn handed them to the Israeli Embassy... However, the FBI investigation implied much more than the spying of Franklin and some AIPAC officials, illustrating the Israeli connection to the office that had played such a monumental role in providing the propaganda to justify the US attack on Iraq. For Franklin was intimately involved in secretive activities for the OSP. Without notifying the State Department or the CIA, the OSP had been involved in back channel operations that included a series of secret meetings in Washington, Rome and Paris to discuss regime change in Iraq, Iran, and Syria. These meetings brought together OSP staff and consultants (Franklin, Harold Rhode and Michael Ledeen), expatriate Iranian arms dealer Manichur Ghorbanifar, AIPAC lobbyists, Ahmed Chalabi, and Italian and Israeli intelligence officers. In short, it appears that various neoconservatives connected with the Department of Defense were consciously working with Israel in shaping American Middle East policy.
"Israel was also involved in promoting the US attack on Iraq apart from these covert dealings. Some of the spurious intelligence provided to the US came directly from Israel, as shown in a study by Shlomo Brom, a senior researcher at one of Israel's leading think tanks, the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University. A special panel of the Israeli Knesset investigated and confirmed the charge that Israeli intelligence services had greatly exaggerated the Iraqi WMD threat. Yossi Sarid, a member of the Knesset's Foreign Affairs & Defense Committee, charged that Israeli intelligence had deliberately misled the US. According to James Risen in State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration, Israeli intelligence officials frequently traveled to Washington to brief top government officials. The CIA was skeptical of the Israeli intelligence and after the Israeli briefings would circulate reports throughout the government discounting the Israeli information. Wolfowitz and other neoconservatives who had met with the Israeli officials, were enraged by the CIA's negative response, with Wolfowitz complaining vehemently to CIA Director Tenet.
"It has been alleged that the OSP was provided with information by a special unit created in Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's office. Israel had a history of providing questionable intelligence in regard to Iraq to make that country appear threatening. As pointed out earlier, shortly after the September 11 terrorism, Aman, Israel's military intelligence service, reportedly claimed that Iraq had been involved in the attacks. In June 2002, Efraim Halevy, the director of the Mossad, informed a closed meeting of the NATO Alliance Council in Brussels that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons and was renewing its efforts to develop nuclear weapons...
"It has been argued that Israel, in its support for war on Iraq, was simply going along with the US government. Secretary of State Colin Powell's Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson maintains that the Israelis initially wanted the US to focus on Iran not Iraq, and only shifted to supporting the war on Iraq in early 2002 upon realizing that a war on Iraq had become definite American policy. As mentioned earlier, the report that the IDF's supreme intelligence agency, Aman, at the time of 9/11, promoted the disinformation that Saddam was behind the terrorist attacks militates against the idea that the Israeli government as a unified entity was opposed to the war during this early period. However, even if there had not been complete Israeli support for a US attack on Iraq prior to the early spring, the director of the Mossad's public backing of the major WMD justification for the war in June 2002, before an influential NATO audience, would belie any argument that Israel was simply a reluctant follower of US policy. The fact of the matter is that the Israeli government was pressing the US to attack Iraq and actively abetting the war propaganda process. Ranaan Gissin, a senior Sharon adviser, told the AP in August 2002, 'It will only give Saddam Hussein more of an opportunity to accelerate his programme of WMD'. Gissin said Sharon sent the US government Israeli intelligence estimates that Saddam had boosted production of chemical and biological weapons in anticipation of war with the US. Gissin also claimed that Saddam had recently ordered Iraq's Atomic Energy Commission to speed up work on developing nuclear weapons. 'Saddam's going to be able to reach a point where these weapons will be operational', Gissin direly warned. Former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was also trumpeting the necessity of war. In September, 2002, the Wall Street Journal published a piece by Netanyahu entitled 'The Case for Toppling Saddam', in which he held that 'This is a dictator who is rapidly expanding his arsenal of biological and chemical weapons, who has used these WMD against his subjects and his neighbors, and who is feverishly trying to acquire nuclear weapons'. Netanyahu waved the red flag of Saddam's purported nuclear threat. 'Two decades ago it was possible to thwart Saddam's nuclear ambitions by bombing a single installation', Netanyahu exclaimed... Netanyahu's focus was Iraq's alleged nuclear threat. '[T]he imperative is to defang the Iraqi regime by preventing its acquisition of atomic weapons', Netanyahu solemnly declared in October 2002. 'No inspectors will be able to do that job'. In fact, as early as April 2002, Netanyahu was briefing US senators as to the nuclear danger of Saddam Hussein. According to columnist Robert Novak, Netanyahu warned that Saddam 'not only is acquiring nuclear weapons but may have the means of delivering them against the US' via 'satchels carried by terrorists'.
"It is noteworthy that the pro-war position in Israel transcended the Likudnik right, being taken up by Labor leader Shimon Peres, who was serving as Sharon's Foreign Minister. Peres stated in September 2002 that 'the campaign against Saddam is a must. Inspections and inspectors are good for decent people, but dishonest people can overcome easily inspections and inspectors'.* Former Labor Party Prime Minister Ehud Barak also stressed the need for military action... In late December 2002, Robert Novak maintained that Prime Minister Sharon was privately urging American lawmakers to support an attack on Iraq for the benefit of Israel... In February 2003, as the American attack approached, Prime Minister Sharon told a visiting delegation of American congressmen in Israel that the war against Iraq would provide a model for how the US should also deal with Syria, Libya, and Iran. 'These are irresponsible states, which must be disarmed of WMD, and a successful American move in Iraq as a model will make that easier to achieve'. While Sharon said that Israel will not be directly involved in the attack on Iraq, he emphasized that 'the American action is of vital importance'. In short, Sharon was advising the US how it should deal with Israel's enemies." (pp 168-172)
[*LOL: Read my 7/4/09 post By Way of Deception.]
Speaking of nameless, faceless Israelis with seemingly unfettered access to the highest levels of US decision-making, check out the following news report, which to my knowledge, typically, did not make it into the ms Australian media:
"In his recent testimony to the UK Committee investigating the Iraq war, British Prime minister Tony Blair admitted that Israeli officials influenced and participated in the decision by the US and UK governments to attack Iraq in 2003. During testimony regarding his meetings in Texas with then-US President George W Bush in 2002, Blair stated, 'As I recall that discussion, it was less to do with specifics about what we were going to do on Iraq or, indeed, the Middle East, because the Israel issue was a big, big issue at the time. I think, in fact, I remember, actually, there may have been conversations that we had even with Israelis, the two of us, whilst we were there. So that was a major part of all this'." (British PM: Israeli officials were part of decision to invade Iraq, Saeed Bannoura, IMEMC News, 20/2/10)
Blair's shifty and tantalising mention of Israeli officials at his meetings with Bush prompted Professor Stephen Walt, co-author of The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy, to cite his words as further proof of one of the book's key findings - that "[p]ressure from Israel and the lobby" was "a critical element" in the Bush administration's decision to attack Iraq in March 2003. (Israel Lobby, p 230) This, of course, was like a red rag to a bull for Israel's hasbara peddlers, hence the pre-emptive publication in the February 18 Age of The Israel lobby myth revived again, by Dvir Abramovich, director of the Centre for Jewish History & Culture at the University of Melbourne.
Predictably, while Abramovich finds some wriggle room in Blair's testimony - "[A] close reading of what Blair actually said ('the Israel issue was a big, big issue at the time') reveals that he was referring to Israel's actions in the West Bank during Operation Defensive Shield, not to the decision to invade Iraq" - he conveniently omits Blair's 2nd (conversations between Bush, Blair and the Israelis) and 3rd sentences (those conversations being a major part of all this), with their suggestion that these conversations had more to do with Operation Iraqi Freedom than Israel's mugging of the West Bank, Operation Defensive Shield.
The full story of Israeli involvement in the war on Iraq is still to be told, with missing pieces like Blair's (and Janis Karpinski's recent reiteration of Israeli agents in Abu Ghraib) popping up from time to time. I've already posted some of Mearsheimer & Walt's citations of Israeli cheerleading in the lead up to the war (Greg Sheridan: Conjuror Extraordinaire, 1/4/08). And I've also posted on Stephen J Sniegoski's superb study The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, & the National Interest of Israel (Absent-Minded Professors Inadvertently Set Iraq Ablaze, 22/12/08). Sniegoski's discussion of active Israeli involvement in the decision-making process that led to the Bush/Blair war on Iraq helps place Blair's (and Kwiatkowski's) comments in context:
"Returning to the role of the Office of Special Plans (OSP) [created by Wolfowitz and Feith in August 2002]: as a result of a FBI probe of Israeli spying in the US (ongoing since 1999), which was leaked to the public in... 2004, it came out that Israeli agents had direct contact with members of the OSP. In essence, it was not simply that individuals in the OSP were pro-Israel, but that some of them might be conspirators in a clandestine operation launched by Sharon's Likud Party; they were, as Robert Dreyfuss called them, 'agents of influence' for a foreign government. The spotlight shifted to the OSP because the FBI, in its probe of Israeli spying, observed OSP analyst Larry Franklin meeting with an Israeli official in the presence of two officials from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). In October 2005, Franklin plead guilty to the charge of having turned over highly classified intelligence documents to an Israeli government official and to members of AIPAC, who in turn handed them to the Israeli Embassy... However, the FBI investigation implied much more than the spying of Franklin and some AIPAC officials, illustrating the Israeli connection to the office that had played such a monumental role in providing the propaganda to justify the US attack on Iraq. For Franklin was intimately involved in secretive activities for the OSP. Without notifying the State Department or the CIA, the OSP had been involved in back channel operations that included a series of secret meetings in Washington, Rome and Paris to discuss regime change in Iraq, Iran, and Syria. These meetings brought together OSP staff and consultants (Franklin, Harold Rhode and Michael Ledeen), expatriate Iranian arms dealer Manichur Ghorbanifar, AIPAC lobbyists, Ahmed Chalabi, and Italian and Israeli intelligence officers. In short, it appears that various neoconservatives connected with the Department of Defense were consciously working with Israel in shaping American Middle East policy.
"Israel was also involved in promoting the US attack on Iraq apart from these covert dealings. Some of the spurious intelligence provided to the US came directly from Israel, as shown in a study by Shlomo Brom, a senior researcher at one of Israel's leading think tanks, the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University. A special panel of the Israeli Knesset investigated and confirmed the charge that Israeli intelligence services had greatly exaggerated the Iraqi WMD threat. Yossi Sarid, a member of the Knesset's Foreign Affairs & Defense Committee, charged that Israeli intelligence had deliberately misled the US. According to James Risen in State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration, Israeli intelligence officials frequently traveled to Washington to brief top government officials. The CIA was skeptical of the Israeli intelligence and after the Israeli briefings would circulate reports throughout the government discounting the Israeli information. Wolfowitz and other neoconservatives who had met with the Israeli officials, were enraged by the CIA's negative response, with Wolfowitz complaining vehemently to CIA Director Tenet.
"It has been alleged that the OSP was provided with information by a special unit created in Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's office. Israel had a history of providing questionable intelligence in regard to Iraq to make that country appear threatening. As pointed out earlier, shortly after the September 11 terrorism, Aman, Israel's military intelligence service, reportedly claimed that Iraq had been involved in the attacks. In June 2002, Efraim Halevy, the director of the Mossad, informed a closed meeting of the NATO Alliance Council in Brussels that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons and was renewing its efforts to develop nuclear weapons...
"It has been argued that Israel, in its support for war on Iraq, was simply going along with the US government. Secretary of State Colin Powell's Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson maintains that the Israelis initially wanted the US to focus on Iran not Iraq, and only shifted to supporting the war on Iraq in early 2002 upon realizing that a war on Iraq had become definite American policy. As mentioned earlier, the report that the IDF's supreme intelligence agency, Aman, at the time of 9/11, promoted the disinformation that Saddam was behind the terrorist attacks militates against the idea that the Israeli government as a unified entity was opposed to the war during this early period. However, even if there had not been complete Israeli support for a US attack on Iraq prior to the early spring, the director of the Mossad's public backing of the major WMD justification for the war in June 2002, before an influential NATO audience, would belie any argument that Israel was simply a reluctant follower of US policy. The fact of the matter is that the Israeli government was pressing the US to attack Iraq and actively abetting the war propaganda process. Ranaan Gissin, a senior Sharon adviser, told the AP in August 2002, 'It will only give Saddam Hussein more of an opportunity to accelerate his programme of WMD'. Gissin said Sharon sent the US government Israeli intelligence estimates that Saddam had boosted production of chemical and biological weapons in anticipation of war with the US. Gissin also claimed that Saddam had recently ordered Iraq's Atomic Energy Commission to speed up work on developing nuclear weapons. 'Saddam's going to be able to reach a point where these weapons will be operational', Gissin direly warned. Former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was also trumpeting the necessity of war. In September, 2002, the Wall Street Journal published a piece by Netanyahu entitled 'The Case for Toppling Saddam', in which he held that 'This is a dictator who is rapidly expanding his arsenal of biological and chemical weapons, who has used these WMD against his subjects and his neighbors, and who is feverishly trying to acquire nuclear weapons'. Netanyahu waved the red flag of Saddam's purported nuclear threat. 'Two decades ago it was possible to thwart Saddam's nuclear ambitions by bombing a single installation', Netanyahu exclaimed... Netanyahu's focus was Iraq's alleged nuclear threat. '[T]he imperative is to defang the Iraqi regime by preventing its acquisition of atomic weapons', Netanyahu solemnly declared in October 2002. 'No inspectors will be able to do that job'. In fact, as early as April 2002, Netanyahu was briefing US senators as to the nuclear danger of Saddam Hussein. According to columnist Robert Novak, Netanyahu warned that Saddam 'not only is acquiring nuclear weapons but may have the means of delivering them against the US' via 'satchels carried by terrorists'.
"It is noteworthy that the pro-war position in Israel transcended the Likudnik right, being taken up by Labor leader Shimon Peres, who was serving as Sharon's Foreign Minister. Peres stated in September 2002 that 'the campaign against Saddam is a must. Inspections and inspectors are good for decent people, but dishonest people can overcome easily inspections and inspectors'.* Former Labor Party Prime Minister Ehud Barak also stressed the need for military action... In late December 2002, Robert Novak maintained that Prime Minister Sharon was privately urging American lawmakers to support an attack on Iraq for the benefit of Israel... In February 2003, as the American attack approached, Prime Minister Sharon told a visiting delegation of American congressmen in Israel that the war against Iraq would provide a model for how the US should also deal with Syria, Libya, and Iran. 'These are irresponsible states, which must be disarmed of WMD, and a successful American move in Iraq as a model will make that easier to achieve'. While Sharon said that Israel will not be directly involved in the attack on Iraq, he emphasized that 'the American action is of vital importance'. In short, Sharon was advising the US how it should deal with Israel's enemies." (pp 168-172)
[*LOL: Read my 7/4/09 post By Way of Deception.]
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Wag the Dog
'I'm just wagging the dog/If you don't know how to do it/ I'll show you how to wag the dog' (Words by Ehud Olmert. Music by The Rolling Stones)
"The findings of the 2 professors (Mearsheimer & Walt*) are right to the last detail. Every senator and congressman knows that criticising the Israeli government is political suicide... If the Israeli Government wanted a law tomorrow annulling the 10 Commandments, 95 Senators (at least) would sign the bill forthwith. President Bush, for example, has withdrawn from all the established American positions regarding our conflict. He accepts automatically the positions of our government... Almost all the American media are closed to Palestinians and Israeli peace activists. As to professors - almost all know which side of the bread is peanut-buttered. If, in spite of that, somebody dares to open their mouth against the Israeli policy - as happens once every few years - they are smothered under a volley of denunciations: anti-Semite, holocaust denier, neo-Nazi." (Who's the Dog? Who's the Tail? Uri Avnery 22/4/06)
[*The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy, 2007]
"Earlier this afternoon, the United States House of Representatives voted 390-5 in favor of H. RES. 34, voicing their support for the Israeli military effort in the Gaza Strip. The bill... demanded that Hamas end its rocket fire against Israel and renounce violence, while expressing 'vigorous support and unwavering committment' to Israel and declaring that its 2 weeks of attacks on the Gaza Strip were rightful acts of self-defense. The bill also demanded that all nations condemn Hamas for breaking the 'calm'... and that all nations recognize that the thousands of civilian casualties caused by the Israeli attacks were entirely the fault of Hamas. The bill also called upon Egypt to tighten its borders to prevent 'smuggling' into the Gaza Strip and promised US support to that end." (House overwhelmingly passes bill cheering Israeli war on Gaza, antiwar.com, 9/1/09)
"US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice was left shame-faced after President George W Bush ordered her to abstain in a key UN vote on the Gaza war, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on Monday. 'She was left shamed. A resolution that she prepared and arranged, and in the end she did not vote in favour', Olmert said in a speech in... Ashkelon. The UN Security Council passed a resolution last Thursday calling for an immediate ceasefire in the 3-week old conflict in the Gaza Strip and an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza... Fourteen of the Council's 15 members voted in favour of the resolution, which was later rejected by both Israel and Hamas. The US, Israel's main ally, had initially been expected to vote in line with the other 14 but Rice... became the sole abstention. 'In the night between Thursday and Friday, when the secretary of state wanted to lead the vote on a ceasefire at the Security Council, we did not want her to vote in favour', Olmert said. 'I said get me President Bush on the phone. They said he was in the middle of giving a speech in Philadelphia. I said I didn't care. I need to talk to him now. He got off the podium and spoke to me. I told him the US could not vote in favour. It cannot vote in favour of such a resolution. He immediately called the secretary of state and told her not to vote in favour'." (Rice shame-faced by Bush over UN Gaza vote: Olmert, antiwar.com, 13/1/09)
"Israeli PM Ehud Olmert's Monday comments... have sparked a war of words between the prime minister's office and the US State Department [which] immediately contradicted Olmert's claims, insisting that Israel might want to 'clarify or correct the record' with respect to the comments. Rice has dismissed Olmert's claim as 'fiction'... Yet spokesmen for Olmert say that the prime minister stands behind his version of events." (Olmert stands behind Rice-shaming claim, antiwar.com, 14/1/09)
Maybe "... public gloating by an Israeli PM that he can order a US president off a podium and instruct him to reverse and humiliate his secretary of state may cause even Ehud's poodle to rise up on its hind legs one day and bite its master." (Is Ehud's poodle acting up? Patrick Buchanan, antiwar.com, 17/1/09) But don't hold your breath.
And by the way, it's not that Olmert hasn't done this sort of thing before: "Candid TV footage of the Israeli PM Ehud Olmert and his Italian counterpart, Romano Prodi, showed Olmert coaching Prodi on what to say at their joint press conference in Rome." (Candid TV footage shows Olmert coaching Prodi, The Independent, 14/12/06)
Wagging the dog? Wagging the dogs.
"The findings of the 2 professors (Mearsheimer & Walt*) are right to the last detail. Every senator and congressman knows that criticising the Israeli government is political suicide... If the Israeli Government wanted a law tomorrow annulling the 10 Commandments, 95 Senators (at least) would sign the bill forthwith. President Bush, for example, has withdrawn from all the established American positions regarding our conflict. He accepts automatically the positions of our government... Almost all the American media are closed to Palestinians and Israeli peace activists. As to professors - almost all know which side of the bread is peanut-buttered. If, in spite of that, somebody dares to open their mouth against the Israeli policy - as happens once every few years - they are smothered under a volley of denunciations: anti-Semite, holocaust denier, neo-Nazi." (Who's the Dog? Who's the Tail? Uri Avnery 22/4/06)
[*The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy, 2007]
"Earlier this afternoon, the United States House of Representatives voted 390-5 in favor of H. RES. 34, voicing their support for the Israeli military effort in the Gaza Strip. The bill... demanded that Hamas end its rocket fire against Israel and renounce violence, while expressing 'vigorous support and unwavering committment' to Israel and declaring that its 2 weeks of attacks on the Gaza Strip were rightful acts of self-defense. The bill also demanded that all nations condemn Hamas for breaking the 'calm'... and that all nations recognize that the thousands of civilian casualties caused by the Israeli attacks were entirely the fault of Hamas. The bill also called upon Egypt to tighten its borders to prevent 'smuggling' into the Gaza Strip and promised US support to that end." (House overwhelmingly passes bill cheering Israeli war on Gaza, antiwar.com, 9/1/09)
"US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice was left shame-faced after President George W Bush ordered her to abstain in a key UN vote on the Gaza war, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on Monday. 'She was left shamed. A resolution that she prepared and arranged, and in the end she did not vote in favour', Olmert said in a speech in... Ashkelon. The UN Security Council passed a resolution last Thursday calling for an immediate ceasefire in the 3-week old conflict in the Gaza Strip and an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza... Fourteen of the Council's 15 members voted in favour of the resolution, which was later rejected by both Israel and Hamas. The US, Israel's main ally, had initially been expected to vote in line with the other 14 but Rice... became the sole abstention. 'In the night between Thursday and Friday, when the secretary of state wanted to lead the vote on a ceasefire at the Security Council, we did not want her to vote in favour', Olmert said. 'I said get me President Bush on the phone. They said he was in the middle of giving a speech in Philadelphia. I said I didn't care. I need to talk to him now. He got off the podium and spoke to me. I told him the US could not vote in favour. It cannot vote in favour of such a resolution. He immediately called the secretary of state and told her not to vote in favour'." (Rice shame-faced by Bush over UN Gaza vote: Olmert, antiwar.com, 13/1/09)
"Israeli PM Ehud Olmert's Monday comments... have sparked a war of words between the prime minister's office and the US State Department [which] immediately contradicted Olmert's claims, insisting that Israel might want to 'clarify or correct the record' with respect to the comments. Rice has dismissed Olmert's claim as 'fiction'... Yet spokesmen for Olmert say that the prime minister stands behind his version of events." (Olmert stands behind Rice-shaming claim, antiwar.com, 14/1/09)
Maybe "... public gloating by an Israeli PM that he can order a US president off a podium and instruct him to reverse and humiliate his secretary of state may cause even Ehud's poodle to rise up on its hind legs one day and bite its master." (Is Ehud's poodle acting up? Patrick Buchanan, antiwar.com, 17/1/09) But don't hold your breath.
And by the way, it's not that Olmert hasn't done this sort of thing before: "Candid TV footage of the Israeli PM Ehud Olmert and his Italian counterpart, Romano Prodi, showed Olmert coaching Prodi on what to say at their joint press conference in Rome." (Candid TV footage shows Olmert coaching Prodi, The Independent, 14/12/06)
Wagging the dog? Wagging the dogs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)