The Israel Lobby? - Noam Chomsky

[Tom Joad]

Comment:
I think the reasons the US has certain policies in the Middle East are complex. It is caused by a mix of factors. One could have philosophical debates about how this all came about, but it certainly is not working, and need to be changed.

"The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it."

I actually think Chomsky's perspective is closer to my own, in that the study Chomsky responds to does propose there is this entity, AIPAC & related groups, that create a policy in the Middle East that supposedly so different than what is usually US policy. Out of nothing, it would seem to suggest.. if it weren't for AIPAC & the "Israel Lobby", US policy would be for human rights and for fairness, just like everywhere else the US extends its influence. The fact is that US policy in the Middle East, its opposition to self-determination for Palestinians, its militarism and warmaking, is very consistent with US policy elsewhere on the planet. That is tragic, and must be confronted at every opportunity.

That is not to say that AIPAC is irrelevant. I don't think anyone here, though the debate is intense, has even suggested that. With a $15 million budget, I think AIPAC would be last ones to say they have no effect on US policy. They do make a difference, just like the Sierra Club has some effect on environmental policy (and certainly not enough these days), and the National Rifle Association makes a difference on gun-control policies. In so far as a lobby operates within the law, they have every right to attempt to influence policy. By the same token, just as the NRA has a right to advocate for the right of everyone to carry automatic weapons, so do people have the right to oppose that policy they perceive to be as detrimental to our well-being.

So it is right that groups that support what they see as a fairer solution to problems in the Middle East to confront AIPAC, its Christian-right allies, its militarist allies, and call for an end to one-sided support for Israeli militarist policies, and support human rights and peace for everyone in the region.

Be sure the whole article. It is well-worth it. ---Tom
________________________________________________________________________

The Israel Lobby?
by Noam Chomsky
http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=9999§ionID=11

I've received many requests to comment on the article by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt (henceforth M-W), published in the London Review of Books, which has been circulating extensively on the internet and has elicited a storm of controversy. A few thoughts on the matter follow.

M-W deserve credit for taking a position that is sure to elicit tantrums and fanatical lies and denunciations, but it's worth noting that there is nothing unusual about that. Take any topic that has risen to the level of Holy Writ among "the herd of independent minds" (to borrow Harold Rosenberg's famous description of intellectuals): for example, anything having to do with the Balkan wars, which played a huge role in the extraordinary campaigns of self-adulation that disfigured intellectual discourse towards the end of the millennium, going well beyond even historical precedents, which are ugly enough. Naturally, it is of extraordinary importance to the herd to protect that self-image, much of it based on deceit and fabrication. Therefore, any attempt even to bring up plain (undisputed, surely relevant) facts is either ignored (M-W can't be ignored), or sets off most impressive tantrums, slanders, fabrications and deceit, and the other standard reactions. Very easy to demonstrate, and by no means limited to these cases. Those without experience in critical analysis of conventional doctrine can be very seriously misled by the particular case of the Middle East(ME).

<snip>

That at once raises another question about the M-W thesis. What were "the Lobbies" that led to pursuing very similar policies throughout the world? Consider the year 1958, a very critical year in world affairs. In 1958, the Eisenhower administration identified the three leading challenges to the US as the ME, North Africa, and Indonesia -- all oil producers, all Islamic. North Africa was taken care of by Algerian (formal) independence. Indonesia and the were taken care of by Suharto's murderous slaughter (1965) and Israel's destruction of Arab secular nationalism (Nasser, 1967). In the ME, that established the close US-Israeli alliance and confirmed the judgment of US intelligence in 1958 that a "logical corollary" of opposition to "radical nationalism" (meaning, secular independent nationalism) is "support for Israel" as the one reliable US base in the region (along with Turkey, which entered into close relations with Israel in the same year). Suharto's coup aroused virtual euphoria, and he remained "our kind of guy" (as the Clinton administration called him) until he could no longer keep control in 1998, through a hideous record that compares well with Saddam Hussein -- who was also "our kind of guy" until he disobeyed orders in 1990. What was the Indonesia Lobby? The Saddam Lobby? And the question generalizes around the world. Unless these questions are faced, the issue (1) cannot be seriously addressed.

<snip>

Also to be explained, again, is why US ME policy is so similar to its policies elsewhere -- to which, incidentally, Israel has made important contributions, e.g., in helping the executive branch to evade congressional barriers to carrying out massive terror in Central America, to evade embargoes against South Africa and Rhodesia, and much else. All of which again makes it even more difficult to separate (2) from (1) -- the latter, pretty much uniform, in essentials, throughout the world.

<snip>

[Selatius]

1. Our policy is driven by corporate greed. That's how I see it

And I'll spare the nutjobs the effort by saying that Noam Chomsky is a self-hating Jew! :sarcasm:

Seriously, though, I view Chomsky as correct on this point.

[Violet_Crumble]

2. Thanks for posting that...

He mentioned the sort of reactions that I've seen exhibited in some posts in this forum on the topic: 'Therefore, any attempt even to bring up plain (undisputed, surely relevant) facts is either ignored (M-W can't be ignored), or sets off most impressive tantrums, slanders, fabrications and deceit, and the other standard reactions.'

and then said something I totally agree with: 'But recognizing that M-W took a courageous stand, which merits praise, we still have to ask how convincing their thesis is. Not very, in my opinion.'

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

3. More selective quoting....

M-W focus on AIPAC and the evangelicals, but they recognize that the Lobby includes most of the political-intellectual class -- at which point the thesis loses much of its content. They also have a highly selective use of evidence (and much of the evidence is assertion). Take, as one example, arms sales to China, which they bring up as undercutting US interests. But they fail to mention that when the US objected, Israel was compelled to back down: under Clinton in 2000, and again in 2005, in this case with the Washington neocon regime going out of its way to humiliate Israel. Without a peep from The Lobby, in either case, though it was a serious blow to Israel. There's a lot more like that. Take the worst crime in Israel's history, its invasion of Lebanon in 1982 with the goal of destroying the secular nationalist PLO and ending its embarrassing calls for political settlement, and imposing a client Maronite regime. The Reagan administration strongly supported the invasion through its worst atrocities, but a few months later (August), when the atrocities were becoming so severe that even NYT Beirut correspondent Thomas Friedman was complaining about them, and they were beginning to harm the US "national interest," Reagan ordered Israel to call off the invasion, then entered to complete the removal of the PLO from Lebanon, an outcome very welcome to both Israel and the US (and consistent with general US opposition to independent nationalism). The outcome was not entirely what the US-Israel wanted, but the relevant observation here is that the Reaganites supported the aggression and atrocities when that stand was conducive to the "national interest," and terminated them when it no longer was (then entering to finish the main job). That's pretty normal.

Another problem that M-W do not address is the role of the energy corporations. They are hardly marginal in US political life -- transparently in the Bush administration, but in fact always. How can they be so impotent in the face of the Lobby? As ME scholar Stephen Zunes has rightly pointed out, "there are far more powerful interests that have a stake in what happens in the Persian Gulf region than does AIPAC , such as the oil companies, the arms industry and other special interests whose lobbying influence and campaign contributions far surpass that of the much-vaunted Zionist lobby and its allied donors to congressional races.

<snip>

I won't run through the other arguments, but I don't feel that they have much force, on examination.

The thesis M-W propose does however have plenty of appeal. The reason, I think, is that it leaves the US government untouched on its high pinnacle of nobility, "Wilsonian idealism," etc., merely in the grip of an all-powerful force that it cannot escape. It's rather like attributing the crimes of the past 60 years to "exaggerated Cold War illusions," etc. Convenient, but not too convincing. In either case.
"

Seems like the anti-Israeli "champion" does not endorse the M-W "report."

[Tom Joad]

4. And there is much in that report i do not support either.

And of course, to call him "anti-Israeli" is false. Noam Chomsky supports full human rights for all. he is not "anti" anyone.

[barb162]

6. Chomsky should stick to linguistics which is about the only

thing he knows

[Violet_Crumble]

7. He knows a hell of a lot about US foreign policy...

If he didn't he'd probably be reduced to posting meaningless dribble on internet bulletin boards and making the mistake of thinking that anyone cares if he did knee-jerk attacks on scholars who don't see the world his way :)

btw, barb. If you'd read what he wrote, you'd have noticed he doesn't agree with the report. Shouldn't you be singing his praises like you do with that conservative guy, whatsisname?


Violet...

[Tom Joad]

9. A very persuasive and articulate argument, Barb.

Thanks so much

[Scurrilous]

5. Thanks for posting this Tom...

...well-worth the read. :thumbsup:

[Douglas Carpenter]

8. very interesting article -- Noam just did an interview on DemocracyNow

in which he discussed this matter along with his new book, Failed State.

to listen/watch or read transcript--here is the link:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/31/148254&mode=thread&tid=25
___________________________________

And please allow me to again mention something else of interest to everyone interested in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict:

Fmr. Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben Ami Debated Outspoken Professor Norman Finkelstein on Israel, the Palestinians, and the Peace Process on Tuesday, February 14th, 2006

to listen or download or read the transcript--here is the link:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/14/1518230&mode=thread&tid=25