Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
THE LEFT AND THE ISRAEL LOBBY – by Joseph Anderson, Dissident Voice
Now that Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer have broken the taboo in the mainstream American media establishment of not only pointing out that the Israel lobby exists, but actually analyzing it from their perspective, the only place that open discussion, analysis and debate about the lobby remain firmly taboo is, ironically, ON THE LEFT! It’s a taboo imposed on the left by certain leftist icons and their suppression – if not censorship – of free expression and debate on this topic in progressive venues (lectures, panels, press or broadcast). Even some Palestinian-Americans have been forced to knuckle under to these leftist icons’ denial of the power of the Israel lobby in exchange for those icons’ or certain progressive/leftist groups’ political support.
For example, as of this writing, where is an informed rebuttal to Noam Chomsky's dismissive position on the Lobby or at least an honest, open debate about the lobby on the national radio program Democracy Now? So, I wanted to incisively debunk at least some of the major arguments used by certain Left icons in denying the power and influence of the Israel lobby in U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and in suppressing discussion of its power domestically. Now, some people will bring up a red herring list of other possible influences in U.S. Mideast foreign policy to deny my analysis, but here I am dealing with THE ISRAEL LOBBY and how leftist icons respond to that topic. My ultimate position is: whatever our positions on the lobby, do we get to honestly discuss and debate it in formal public settings? Please read more:
For example, as of this writing, where is an informed rebuttal to Noam Chomsky's dismissive position on the Lobby or at least an honest, open debate about the lobby on the national radio program Democracy Now? So, I wanted to incisively debunk at least some of the major arguments used by certain Left icons in denying the power and influence of the Israel lobby in U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and in suppressing discussion of its power domestically. Now, some people will bring up a red herring list of other possible influences in U.S. Mideast foreign policy to deny my analysis, but here I am dealing with THE ISRAEL LOBBY and how leftist icons respond to that topic. My ultimate position is: whatever our positions on the lobby, do we get to honestly discuss and debate it in formal public settings? Please read more:
.
The Left and the Israel Lobby
by Joseph Anderson
There have been prominent responses to the recent debate over the influence of the Israel lobby sparked by the article, “The Israel Lobby,” by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, which was recently published in the London Review of Books. Some – predictably – condemn any attempt to raise the issue as “anti-Semitic” – metaphorically screaming, “Israel lobby? What Israel lobby?” This is arguably the largest lobby based in D.C. In fact, one might somehow surmise its power by the sheer marshalling of vehemence and overwhelming forces with which its power is denied.
The very people who, on the one hand, insist that there is no proof of the Israel lobby’s power, or say that it’s too difficult to study in Washington’s overall political environment, on the other hand, typically attack anyone as “anti-Semitic” who attempts to conduct the very research and analysis whose study could provide such proof.
One has not been allowed even to raise the very question about the Israel lobby (now finally broached in the establishment press by Mearsheimer & Walt), let alone study and investigate it, without being labeled, slurred or at least insinuated as being “anti-Semitic.” When these sharp attacks come from iconic and otherwise authoritative leftist intellectuals, I call it not only unethical and morally negligent (the Israel lobby being one of the most significant obstacles to justice for the Palestinians), but downright anti-intellectual. Indeed, they typically refuse to debate the issue publicly, but rather merely make one-sided strawman potshots and dismissals.
Other prominent progressives – including (sometimes closeted) Zionist apologists on the Left (headed by Left guru Noam Chomsky) – now employ a more sophisticated approach. Instead of denying the existence of the Israel lobby altogether or calling others “anti-Semitic” (or like Stephen Zunes’ fallback attack, saying it “parallels anti-Semitism,” in effect attacking questioners as thinking like anti-Semites), they admit to the existence of the Lobby, but dismiss it as inconsequential.
(I never understood the apparent proclivity of many in the Left not to be able to hold more than one factor in their minds at the same time: it, indeed, seems to be always either-or, instead of possibly both-and.)
“The Lobby is not the real problem,” they say; thus saying that progressives should just completely ignore it – but after that attempt at dissuasion, if you don’t, you must be anti-Semitic. But an analysis of these dissuaders’ arguments shows that they are rife with contradictions and, ultimately, just as analytically unpersuasive as the cruder ravings from their colleagues on the Right.
Unfortunately typical of these leftist minimizers of the Lobby is Norman Finkelstein, whom this writer otherwise greatly respects, but whose recent article entitled, "It's Not Either/Or: The Israel Lobby," appeared in the May Day, 2006, issue of Counterpunch. In fact, before a private respectful email debate with this writer, Finkelstein’s position, as I perceived it, was, indeed, much more like the old Chomsky line of absolute dismissal of the Lobby. But, the critical contradictions remaining in Finkelstein’s position still jump out almost immediately to examined analysis.
For example, Finkelstein asserts that, “[a]part from the Israel-Palestine conflict, fundamental U.S. policy in the Middle East hasn't been affected by the Lobby.” But in the very same paragraph, he concedes that, “the alliance with Israel has abetted the most truculent U.S. policies…. The spectrum of U.S. policy differences might be narrow, but in terms of impact on the real lives of real people in the Arab world these differences are probably [probably?] meaningful, the Israeli influence making things worse.” And later in the same article, he admits that, “[i]n terms of alienating the Arab world, [the U.S.] had something to lose” by associating itself with Israel.
In an attempt to resolve the inconsistency of the above (no doubt obvious even to him), Finkelstein attempts to make a distinction between U.S. foreign policy with regard to the Palestinian issue, and that relating to “elsewhere in the Middle East.” However, these issues cannot be so cleanly separated. Because of the reaction (which Finkelstein admits is one of alienation to America) of much of the Arab populace to the mistreatment of the Palestinians, U.S. foreign policy with respect to Palestine inevitably impacts its relations with all other Middle Eastern countries.
The longer the Israeli-Palestinian conflict goes unresolved with no justice for the Palestinians (millions held stateless and others under ‘Jim Crow’), and the more various regimes in the Middle East are seen as having obeisance to U.S. pressures, the greater the movement toward popular (especially Islamic-based) resistance to those regimes. U.S. policymakers surely must know this.
Finkelstein essentially concedes the above when he presents his next argument for minimizing the importance of the Lobby: the U.S. relationship with Israel does affect the U.S. relationship with the remainder of the Middle East after all, but that’s what the U.S. wants. Israel, by this reasoning, is merely a proxy for the United States: it is the puppet, and the U.S. makes it dance.
The difficulty with this argument is that puppets don’t behave the way Israel does. The Israel lobby doesn’t fall all over itself trying to demonstrate to American politicians that Israel is an obedient and useful lackey. Quite the contrary: the Lobby puts its vast resources and constituent mobilizations into bullying and threatening these very same politicians in order to get its way. And woe unto any politician who doesn't comply.
But why would the Lobby – if Israel were indeed the essential tool of American imperialism that Finkelstein, et al., claim – need to be so aggressively threatening? That would only make sense if there were actually a genuine danger that many American politicians – absent those formidable and unignorable threats – might conclude that, in fact, Israel is not a very useful, let alone prerequisite proxy. (After all, foreign proxies are supposed to be doing our fighting there for us: we just supply any necessary arms, technical assistance and satellite reconnaissance.) Which in turn begs the question – how has Israel really served, if arguably at all, rather than upset, U.S. interests?
The first claim that is often made is that Israel helps the U.S. to create political instability in the Middle East, thereby enabling U.S. dominance of the region. The instability is obvious (even if its benefit to the U.S. is a matter of debate).
There is also the inane counterclaim to any assertions of the power of the Israel Lobby that, absent the Lobby, U.S. foreign policy in the “Third World” would still be nefariously imperialist. Well, duh-uhh…!: The answer is of course it would! The Israel lobby doesn’t oppose the imperialist interests of the U.S. in the Middle East; rather, it changes how the U.S. exercises those interests.
However, there is nothing magical about Israel in this respect. When so desired, the U.S. has always seemed to be able to manage to foster domestic instability in almost every Third World country or region of the globe without first setting up or sponsoring the creation of a non-native, apartheid state like Israel. Even absent Israel, the Middle East would be no exception. There is no great love between various regimes ruling Middle Eastern countries; any imperialist worth the name would find a way to continually exploit these differences.
The second claim, which is a specious fallback refinement of the above, is that while, yes, other countries could, theoretically, serve as tools of U.S. imperialism in the region, Israel is “unique and irreplaceable.” Because Israel is essentially a Western country, this argument goes, it will therefore always be loyal to the U.S.; this, in contrast to other regimes that the U.S. props up, only to see them overthrown by popular – and anti-American – uprisings, such as against the Shah in Iran. Israel is therefore, as Finkelstein put it, “the only stable and secure base for projecting U.S. power in this region.”
However, Western sponsorship and a Western cultural identity do not necessarily guarantee unwavering loyalty and subservience to the U.S. Ask the British! They originally thought that Israel’s founders would never turn Zionist guns and bombs on them. Or ask the surviving sailors of the USS Liberty. In fact, it is that very "Western" orientation of Israel – and its accompanying colonialist outlook toward the "inferior peoples" of the Middle East – that drives its own imperialist ambitions. Israel, with the help of the Israel lobby, obviously wants to dominate the region and, if that’s accomplished, that means that Israel’s regional strategic interests may then significantly diverge from those of the U.S.
This doesn’t mean that Israel will ever be directly hostile to the U.S. For example, Europe and Japan are firmly in the Western camp, and are certainly not anti-American by any reasonable stretch of the imagination, and yet they nevertheless pursue their own economic and strategic interests. In many respects, they are rivals to U.S. imperial hegemony. Israel, should it succeed in unequivocally dominating the Middle East as it clearly wishes to do, could develop in the same direction. In the meantime, as Finkelstein points out, the Lobby significantly raises the point at which the "until and unless" threshold of Israel becoming a major liability is reached. Israel wasn’t eternally bound to the British empire after all: it found a new close ally. As a result, it is hardly a mere proxy (much less an irreplaceable one); rather, its relationship to the U.S. is far more complex.
It is this complexity that the minimizers of the Israel Lobby gloss over. They persist in framing the Lobby strictly as acting on behalf of an entirely external entity, wholly foreign to the U.S. economic and political establishment, and thus they attempt to persuade the Left that such a separate entity couldn’t possibly convince an imperialist superpower like the United States to act against its own interests. However, this is a ridiculous oversimplification, demonstrating a profound lack of understanding about how our system of government works.
In reality, the Israel lobby simultaneously operates both as an external interest and as internal "special" interest, represented within a faction of the U.S. ruling class and establishment that wishes to see the United States pursue an unequivocally Israelocentric foreign policy in the Middle East. This faction or special interest commands enormous power due to its domestic political (especially, voter) base: something that no other external, third-party interests possess the ability to do. As such, Israel and its American lobby represent a particular strain of American imperialism.
However, another faction has come to fore, and the debate breaking out in the mainstream represents a clash of viewpoints between these factions: the unequivocally Israelocentric faction (currently represented by the Bush administration) and the non-unequivocally-Israelocentric faction (represented by the Mearsheimer-Walt paper and implicitly articulated by Brzezinski). As the geopolitical cost and the (in part) Israelocentric strategy failure of the war in Iraq grows greater, this domestic intra-imperialist clash of strategies have become visible to the public. What the Mearsheimer & Walt paper is saying is that, under the circumstances, we need to be able to debate this strategy, if not yet in the Congress, at least in the public and our other institutions.
Some may ask why progressives should care whether various internal factions within the ruling class are fighting with each other. Ironically, Finkelstein answered this question himself: it is because these differences have an "impact on the real lives of real people in the Arab world [and many millions of Palestinians alone]..., the Israeli influence making things worse." The Israel Lobby, as he put it, "makes a huge and baneful difference." It is therefore incumbent upon all those who seek peace and justice in the Middle East to combat that baneful influence.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Joseph Anderson is a resident of Berkeley, CA, an occasional contributing political essayist to various
publications, a local media monitor, and a grassroots progressive political activist.
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/June06/Anderson08.htm
.
The Left and the Israel Lobby
by Joseph Anderson
There have been prominent responses to the recent debate over the influence of the Israel lobby sparked by the article, “The Israel Lobby,” by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, which was recently published in the London Review of Books. Some – predictably – condemn any attempt to raise the issue as “anti-Semitic” – metaphorically screaming, “Israel lobby? What Israel lobby?” This is arguably the largest lobby based in D.C. In fact, one might somehow surmise its power by the sheer marshalling of vehemence and overwhelming forces with which its power is denied.
The very people who, on the one hand, insist that there is no proof of the Israel lobby’s power, or say that it’s too difficult to study in Washington’s overall political environment, on the other hand, typically attack anyone as “anti-Semitic” who attempts to conduct the very research and analysis whose study could provide such proof.
One has not been allowed even to raise the very question about the Israel lobby (now finally broached in the establishment press by Mearsheimer & Walt), let alone study and investigate it, without being labeled, slurred or at least insinuated as being “anti-Semitic.” When these sharp attacks come from iconic and otherwise authoritative leftist intellectuals, I call it not only unethical and morally negligent (the Israel lobby being one of the most significant obstacles to justice for the Palestinians), but downright anti-intellectual. Indeed, they typically refuse to debate the issue publicly, but rather merely make one-sided strawman potshots and dismissals.
Other prominent progressives – including (sometimes closeted) Zionist apologists on the Left (headed by Left guru Noam Chomsky) – now employ a more sophisticated approach. Instead of denying the existence of the Israel lobby altogether or calling others “anti-Semitic” (or like Stephen Zunes’ fallback attack, saying it “parallels anti-Semitism,” in effect attacking questioners as thinking like anti-Semites), they admit to the existence of the Lobby, but dismiss it as inconsequential.
(I never understood the apparent proclivity of many in the Left not to be able to hold more than one factor in their minds at the same time: it, indeed, seems to be always either-or, instead of possibly both-and.)
“The Lobby is not the real problem,” they say; thus saying that progressives should just completely ignore it – but after that attempt at dissuasion, if you don’t, you must be anti-Semitic. But an analysis of these dissuaders’ arguments shows that they are rife with contradictions and, ultimately, just as analytically unpersuasive as the cruder ravings from their colleagues on the Right.
Unfortunately typical of these leftist minimizers of the Lobby is Norman Finkelstein, whom this writer otherwise greatly respects, but whose recent article entitled, "It's Not Either/Or: The Israel Lobby," appeared in the May Day, 2006, issue of Counterpunch. In fact, before a private respectful email debate with this writer, Finkelstein’s position, as I perceived it, was, indeed, much more like the old Chomsky line of absolute dismissal of the Lobby. But, the critical contradictions remaining in Finkelstein’s position still jump out almost immediately to examined analysis.
For example, Finkelstein asserts that, “[a]part from the Israel-Palestine conflict, fundamental U.S. policy in the Middle East hasn't been affected by the Lobby.” But in the very same paragraph, he concedes that, “the alliance with Israel has abetted the most truculent U.S. policies…. The spectrum of U.S. policy differences might be narrow, but in terms of impact on the real lives of real people in the Arab world these differences are probably [probably?] meaningful, the Israeli influence making things worse.” And later in the same article, he admits that, “[i]n terms of alienating the Arab world, [the U.S.] had something to lose” by associating itself with Israel.
In an attempt to resolve the inconsistency of the above (no doubt obvious even to him), Finkelstein attempts to make a distinction between U.S. foreign policy with regard to the Palestinian issue, and that relating to “elsewhere in the Middle East.” However, these issues cannot be so cleanly separated. Because of the reaction (which Finkelstein admits is one of alienation to America) of much of the Arab populace to the mistreatment of the Palestinians, U.S. foreign policy with respect to Palestine inevitably impacts its relations with all other Middle Eastern countries.
The longer the Israeli-Palestinian conflict goes unresolved with no justice for the Palestinians (millions held stateless and others under ‘Jim Crow’), and the more various regimes in the Middle East are seen as having obeisance to U.S. pressures, the greater the movement toward popular (especially Islamic-based) resistance to those regimes. U.S. policymakers surely must know this.
Finkelstein essentially concedes the above when he presents his next argument for minimizing the importance of the Lobby: the U.S. relationship with Israel does affect the U.S. relationship with the remainder of the Middle East after all, but that’s what the U.S. wants. Israel, by this reasoning, is merely a proxy for the United States: it is the puppet, and the U.S. makes it dance.
The difficulty with this argument is that puppets don’t behave the way Israel does. The Israel lobby doesn’t fall all over itself trying to demonstrate to American politicians that Israel is an obedient and useful lackey. Quite the contrary: the Lobby puts its vast resources and constituent mobilizations into bullying and threatening these very same politicians in order to get its way. And woe unto any politician who doesn't comply.
But why would the Lobby – if Israel were indeed the essential tool of American imperialism that Finkelstein, et al., claim – need to be so aggressively threatening? That would only make sense if there were actually a genuine danger that many American politicians – absent those formidable and unignorable threats – might conclude that, in fact, Israel is not a very useful, let alone prerequisite proxy. (After all, foreign proxies are supposed to be doing our fighting there for us: we just supply any necessary arms, technical assistance and satellite reconnaissance.) Which in turn begs the question – how has Israel really served, if arguably at all, rather than upset, U.S. interests?
The first claim that is often made is that Israel helps the U.S. to create political instability in the Middle East, thereby enabling U.S. dominance of the region. The instability is obvious (even if its benefit to the U.S. is a matter of debate).
There is also the inane counterclaim to any assertions of the power of the Israel Lobby that, absent the Lobby, U.S. foreign policy in the “Third World” would still be nefariously imperialist. Well, duh-uhh…!: The answer is of course it would! The Israel lobby doesn’t oppose the imperialist interests of the U.S. in the Middle East; rather, it changes how the U.S. exercises those interests.
However, there is nothing magical about Israel in this respect. When so desired, the U.S. has always seemed to be able to manage to foster domestic instability in almost every Third World country or region of the globe without first setting up or sponsoring the creation of a non-native, apartheid state like Israel. Even absent Israel, the Middle East would be no exception. There is no great love between various regimes ruling Middle Eastern countries; any imperialist worth the name would find a way to continually exploit these differences.
The second claim, which is a specious fallback refinement of the above, is that while, yes, other countries could, theoretically, serve as tools of U.S. imperialism in the region, Israel is “unique and irreplaceable.” Because Israel is essentially a Western country, this argument goes, it will therefore always be loyal to the U.S.; this, in contrast to other regimes that the U.S. props up, only to see them overthrown by popular – and anti-American – uprisings, such as against the Shah in Iran. Israel is therefore, as Finkelstein put it, “the only stable and secure base for projecting U.S. power in this region.”
However, Western sponsorship and a Western cultural identity do not necessarily guarantee unwavering loyalty and subservience to the U.S. Ask the British! They originally thought that Israel’s founders would never turn Zionist guns and bombs on them. Or ask the surviving sailors of the USS Liberty. In fact, it is that very "Western" orientation of Israel – and its accompanying colonialist outlook toward the "inferior peoples" of the Middle East – that drives its own imperialist ambitions. Israel, with the help of the Israel lobby, obviously wants to dominate the region and, if that’s accomplished, that means that Israel’s regional strategic interests may then significantly diverge from those of the U.S.
This doesn’t mean that Israel will ever be directly hostile to the U.S. For example, Europe and Japan are firmly in the Western camp, and are certainly not anti-American by any reasonable stretch of the imagination, and yet they nevertheless pursue their own economic and strategic interests. In many respects, they are rivals to U.S. imperial hegemony. Israel, should it succeed in unequivocally dominating the Middle East as it clearly wishes to do, could develop in the same direction. In the meantime, as Finkelstein points out, the Lobby significantly raises the point at which the "until and unless" threshold of Israel becoming a major liability is reached. Israel wasn’t eternally bound to the British empire after all: it found a new close ally. As a result, it is hardly a mere proxy (much less an irreplaceable one); rather, its relationship to the U.S. is far more complex.
It is this complexity that the minimizers of the Israel Lobby gloss over. They persist in framing the Lobby strictly as acting on behalf of an entirely external entity, wholly foreign to the U.S. economic and political establishment, and thus they attempt to persuade the Left that such a separate entity couldn’t possibly convince an imperialist superpower like the United States to act against its own interests. However, this is a ridiculous oversimplification, demonstrating a profound lack of understanding about how our system of government works.
In reality, the Israel lobby simultaneously operates both as an external interest and as internal "special" interest, represented within a faction of the U.S. ruling class and establishment that wishes to see the United States pursue an unequivocally Israelocentric foreign policy in the Middle East. This faction or special interest commands enormous power due to its domestic political (especially, voter) base: something that no other external, third-party interests possess the ability to do. As such, Israel and its American lobby represent a particular strain of American imperialism.
However, another faction has come to fore, and the debate breaking out in the mainstream represents a clash of viewpoints between these factions: the unequivocally Israelocentric faction (currently represented by the Bush administration) and the non-unequivocally-Israelocentric faction (represented by the Mearsheimer-Walt paper and implicitly articulated by Brzezinski). As the geopolitical cost and the (in part) Israelocentric strategy failure of the war in Iraq grows greater, this domestic intra-imperialist clash of strategies have become visible to the public. What the Mearsheimer & Walt paper is saying is that, under the circumstances, we need to be able to debate this strategy, if not yet in the Congress, at least in the public and our other institutions.
Some may ask why progressives should care whether various internal factions within the ruling class are fighting with each other. Ironically, Finkelstein answered this question himself: it is because these differences have an "impact on the real lives of real people in the Arab world [and many millions of Palestinians alone]..., the Israeli influence making things worse." The Israel Lobby, as he put it, "makes a huge and baneful difference." It is therefore incumbent upon all those who seek peace and justice in the Middle East to combat that baneful influence.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Joseph Anderson is a resident of Berkeley, CA, an occasional contributing political essayist to various
publications, a local media monitor, and a grassroots progressive political activist.
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/June06/Anderson08.htm
.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$75.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
In their defense, a few Air America hosts would probably discuss these subjects, but are fearful that they, too, will be Malloyed. Others, like Springer, Franken and Maddow probably wouldn't. This collection of muted liberals is what passes for the progressive voice on the radio. It is little different in the cable/TV or print media.
ISRAEL LOBBY DENIAL
http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_lobby_left.htm
By STEPHEN J. SNIEGOSKI
This nonsensical screed wouldn't even pass muster as a middle school essay. It makes assertions without providing any documentation. For example, he says something to the effect of: the Israeli lobby is arguably won of the most influential in Washington. Oh, on what basis do you make such an assertion?
The thinly disguised anti-semitism is so obvious as to be almost funny. The author mumbles something about a faction of the "ruling class". And just what faction is that? Why doesn't he just come out and say it? He's talking about jews. The author's not fooling anyone by dressing up his hate with pretentious, pseudo-academic language. Why for example does the author not mention the Saudi lobby? Or the Chinese lobby? Or the Canandian timber lobby? Those lobbies exist, they lobby Congress and the White House, yet somehow they aren't as nefarious as the Israeli lobby. The Center for Public Integrity reports that in terms of money spent, the pharmaceutical industry is the biggest lobby in DC and has been for nearly a decade. I wish guys like this would post things on the websites where his ideological soul mates like David Duke regularly post. This type of rubbish shouldn't be up on progressive websites.
You got _that_ right. You Zionist are so PREDICTABLE, and every time you make such an ignorant, knee-jerk comment like that ("his ideological soul mates like David Duke"), or forged posts, or with your crude attempts at character assassination, your waving the "antisemitic sword" about, which is as dull by now as the voice of The Boy Who Cried "Wolf!", you prove every one of your critics' points for them.
The article is not about or Saudi denial, or Chinese denial, or Canadian timber lobby denial. It's about Israel lobby denial. And the fact that other lobbies exist DOESN'T mean that the Israel lobby has no significant power and influence -- a lobby which is composed of _numerous_ very powerful/influential organizations (like AIPAC, JINSA, the ADL, the AJC, the ZOA, the JCRC'S, the Jewish Federations, etc.) -- as everyone knows.
Maybe you can't read in your blind zionist rage: "This [Israelocentric] faction or special interest [lobby] commands enormous power due to its domestic political (especially, voter) base: something that NO OTHER EXTERNAL, THIRD PARTY INTERESTS POSSESS the ability to do. As such, Israel and its American lobby represent a particular strain of American imperialism."
But we understand why Zionists would want to divert our attention from the Israel lobby.
The David Duke quote is real and easily available. You, like he, like to focus your attention entirely on one group, while ignoring all the others. Saudi money is so deeply enmeshed in the Bush administration that it practically bankrolls them. (reference the book House of Saud, House of Bush). Yet, not a mention from the likes of you. Why, because you prefer to buy into the old anti-semitic bromides about a great Jewish conspiracy running the world. That nonsense is so old and tired that it's a wonder anyone still thinks that way.
If you want to make legitimate criticisms of Israeli policy in the occupied territories that's one thing, but to make up conspiracies based on racist assumptions, instead of facts, I suggest you go and hang out with you're idealogical buddy David Duke.
Because no one - especially leftist icons - is DENYING the existence, power and influence of any of the _other_ lobbies. But, if you, Tosh, want to write a paper about the Left and the other lobbies, including the Saudis, then no one's stopping you.
ARE YOU, TOSH, SAYING THAT THE ISRAEL LOBBY DOES _NOT_ HAVE GREAT INFLUENCE?
(Let's see what Tosh says or if he just doesn't answer the question.)
zionist Tosh: "The David Duke quote [allegedly praising the M-W paper] is real and easily available."
You're not only engaging in a CRUDE McCarthyite tactic - guilt by 'association' (associating Duke's alleged praise of the paper, and thus implicitly with M/W) - your mcCarthyite tactic is a non sequitur and thus a logical fallacy. Furthermore, David Duke praises and promotes the U.S. as a white Christian nation: does that ipso facto make all white Christian Americans guilty of raving racism and sympathetic to him and the KKK?
zionist Tosh: "Again you provide no evidence that the Israeli lobby is more influential than any other"
That might be because the article does _NOT_ make that claim.
(However, after Senator Hollings left the Congress, he did say, "You can't have an Israel policy other than what AIPAC gives you.")
zionist Tosh: "I suggest you go and hang out with you're idealogical buddy David Duke."
First of all, once again this is a CRUDE McCarthyite tactic which make YOU, Tosh, look _PATHEITIC_ to anyone but you, TOSH, and any other zionist. Don't you know, Tosh, that most people are SICK AND TIRED of that knee-jerk reacion from zionist Jews like you.
Second, so, once again, anyone who critcizes Israel or examines or criticizes the Israel lobby is an ideological and anti-semitic member of the KKK?
Do YOU, Tosh, have _ANY_ criticism of Israel or Zionism - or is Israel just a perfect state that never does any wrong? Is Israel guilty of _ANY_ wrong against the Palestinian people?
zionist Tosh: "If you want to make legitimate criticisms of Israeli policy in the occupied territories that's one thing, but to make up conspiracies based on racist assumptions, instead of facts"
'Funny', _YOU'RE_ the only one here who's brought up and mentioned the word/phrase "conspiracies" and "a great Jewish conspiracy". Isn't that _curious_?
I did a word/phrase check, in the articles "The Left and the Israel Lobby" and "Israel Lobby Denial", on the words/phrase "conspiracy", "conspiracies", "a great Jewish conspiracy", "a great Jewish conspiracy running the world", and even just "Jewish conspiracy/-ies", and the _ONLY_ place I came across those words/phrase was in _YOUR_ post, TOSH. As a zionist, do YOU know something about this that the rest of us don't know, Tosh?
But we understand why Zionists would want to divert our attention from the _Israel_ lobby, Tosh.
Also a quick fact, I'm not Jewish, or a Zionist. I just don't like discrimination and bias based on ethnicity. I'd argue the same way if you were focusing entirely on Portugal's lobby, for example, while not providing any evidence that it is any more harmful than any other country's lobby.
My take on the Middle East situation is simple. Israel should withdraw to its pre-1967 borders, halt targeted assassinations and attacks on civilan areas and allow a viable Palestinian state to be created. The Palestinian's should immediately halt suicide bombings and rocket attacks on civilians. Bombing a pizza parlor packed with teenagers is not an act of resistance. It's murder. I also think the U.S. role in that part of the world is an impediment to peace.
Moving on to your association with Duke. If you look back at my original post, I say there is a convergence between far left extremism and far right extremism, no matter how much either would like to deny it. Personally, I wouldn't want to have any political belief in common with Duke. I would think I was doing something wrong if I did. A biased political view in common with someone like him is different than saying both Duke and I like vanilla ice cream, for example.
Although you never say "Jewish conspiracy", the implication of your argument is painfully obvious. Lobbying by Israel is worthy of scorn and suspicion, while lobbying by other countries raises no hackles.
(Let's see what Tosh says or if he just doesn't answer the question.)
Yyyep. Zionist Tosh just doesn't answer _that_ question.
zionist Tosh: "As for whether I am, or am not a "Zionist", whatever that even means"
It means someone -- usually Jewish -- who is a supporter of the Jewish European-founded (late 1800's, long before the Holocaust) ideologically Jewish-supremacist colonization of Palestine -- at the expense of the indigenous/native Palestinian Arabs (Muslim, Christian, other and secular) who already live there. Supremacist means a state where Jews have superior rights to those of non-Jews: an apartheid state. Zionism is the belief that Jews have an automatic, natural, superior and God-given right to most/all of Palestine. Zionism is the European colonization of a non-European country, much like all the other European-supremacist colonizations of non-European countries. Though its methods can't be quite as open as earlier white-supremacist methods, Zionism is an ethnic-supremacist ideology, just as South African Apartheid was, just as Jim Crow was, just like Manifest Destiny was, just like Nazism was.
Your pretense to not know what political zionism means betrays your being a (closet) zionist yourself (and, again, not a very good zionist *LIAR*), as anyone who as closely follows this subject as much as you do *obviously* knows what zionism is (even if you have a euphemistic PR definition). So, we all _know_ you're a DIRTY RACIST *LYIN' ZIONIST* anyway.
zionist Tosh: "I'm sticking by that statement. "Saying one can be reasonbly sure" doesn't provide evidence."
I see that zionists are too mentally limited to understand wry sarcasm (especially when applied to 3rd World countries or other small countries).
zionist Tosh: "Maybe Zimbabwe's lobby is less influential than Israel's, maybe not. I'd like to see proof. Also it's notable you selected a small poor Third World country and a minor democracy in the Pacific."
*MAYBE*!!???
Ha-ha-ha--ha-ha!
*WHAT* are *you* smoking!?
Ah, *MAYBE* your right! *MAYBE* the Zimbabwean lobby *IS* as POWERFUL as the Israel lobby in the U.S..
zionist Tosh: "Why didn't you say it's reasonable to assume Israel's lobby is more powerful than Saudi Arabia's or Britain's or Russia's?"
Here's the proof: JA: "This faction or special interest commands enormous power due to its domestic political (especially, voter) base: something that no other external, third-party interests possess the ability to do. As such, Israel and its American lobby represent a particular strain of American imperialism."
zionist Tosh: "This is rhetoric, not proof!"
So, then it ought to be *EASY* to *disprove* it, *HUH* zionist Tosh, *HUH*?
(This, *AGAIN*, is where zionist Tosh *WON'T* answer that question either.)
S.A., the UK, or Russia do not have a vast voter base of affluent, ideological supporters in electorally important cities/states in the U.S.. (Or do you doubt that too, zionist Tosh?) Aside from that, the Israel lobby spends *MILLIONS* of dollars every year on Congressional candidates alone. (Just google: blankfort + "israel lobby". Blankfort is Jewish, by the way.) U.S. law makes it *ILLEGAL* for S.A., the UK, or Russia to spend money to influence American political campaigns. (Israel is the only country in the world that has such a U.S. lobby that operates the way it does and doesn't have to register as a foreign lobby acting on the behalf of another country.) The Israel lobby puts so-called "interns" (really informants for the Israel lobby, or *spies* if you want to be more direct) in almost every Congressional and state representative's office. The Israel lobby has many pro-Israel organizations dispersed in every major American city. The Israel lobby has such major organzations as the ADL, AIPAC, the JCRC's, the Jewish Federations, and even JINSA (from whom many of the Jewish neocons in the Bush administration come). The Israel lobby forces most American politicians of any particular note to take a fealty trip to Israel to go kneel and kiss the zionist ring there, as a physical demonstration that that politician will be obedient to Israel's wishes. (Even Oakland's Barabara Lee was forced to go to Israel and she, before, *CONGRATULATED* _Ariel Sharon_ *TWICE* on his election as Prime Minister!) The Israel lobby has major newspapers in the Jewish community. Unlike the Israel lobby, S.A., the UK and Russia do not have a constellation of highly place executive officers and managers in the mainstream American media, including television, radio and newspapers -- or did I miss all those Saudi sheikhs, British Lords and former Rusian politburo apparachiks in executive positions in the American media? At least 76 Senators don't trot down the Capitol steps in unison and/or issue letters of severe condemnation if an American president so much as says there was a cloudy day in Britain when he went for a visit. The head of S.A., the UK or Russia couldn't _repeatedly_ get away with _openly_ *ignoring* or *embarrassing* an American president (or Secretary of State) and completely get away with it over and over again! Someone can criticize Britain and not be called *anti-white*; but if someone criticizes the state of Israel or the Israel lobby, then out come the *"anti-Semite"* tar brushes from the Israel lobby.
zionist Tosh: "On the other issues: I think Israel's lobby is an impediment to peace as long as it reflects the point of view of the Israeli state and not Israeli peace groups."
So-called "Israeli peace groups" are mostly _ZIONISTS_ (like you, zionist Tosh) -- so-called 'liberal zionists', but ZIONISTS nonetheless. You know what a 'liberal Zionist' is, don't you, zionist Tosh: *you're* apparently one. A 'liberal zionist' is like what used to be 'a liberal pro-Apartheid white South African'; it's like 'a liberal Jim Crow Segregationist'; it's like 'a liberal Aryan-supremacist', it's like 'a liberal Nazi'! (As in _NA_tionalist _ZI_onist.)
'Liberal zionists' don't want *justice*; rather they just want to stop Israel's *worst* atrocities (bad PR for the international cameras) and freeze the current *injustices* in place (give the Palestinians their almost totallly surrounded, divided, bifurcated and trifurcated squiggly bantustan state where the Palestinians would barely control nothing but the dust under their feet) and call it *fair & square* for the Palestinian people.
In fact, ANTI-zionists don't really have a place *anywhere* in Israel, *including* so-called "Israeli peace groups". You know what a That's why they call themselves "Peace Now" and *not* "JUSTICE NOW!"
zionist Tosh: "Also I have no idea if David Duke supports the U.S. as an entity"
No, he's actually for the abolition of the United States, right?
zionist Tosh: "I don't care about David Duke and I wouldn't want to be associated with praising some work that he's also supported."
Well, David Duke supports and praises the U.S. Constitution. What about you?: do you *oppose* the U.S. Constitution or support it?
zionist Tosh: "I don't care about David Duke"
Then why did **YOU** bring him up in your (the exact same as the Israel lobby's against Mearsheimer & Walt) gross little crude (not to mention *silly*) McCarthyite tactic? Now that I've backed you into a corner, you want to try to *weasel* out of it. Typical zionist. Well, speaking of "racist"!: you and David Duke both have *that* in common. And Israel is a _racist dictatorship_ for the Palestinians; it certainly is *not* a democracy for them. (Just like slavery and Jim Crow or Apartheid were not a democracy for blacks.) In fact, it's *ILLEGAL* in Israel for a Palestinian official to call for absolutely equal national, legal and civils rights for both Palestinians and Jews -- just like it was illegal in Nazi Germany for any officials to call for equal rights for both Jews and non-Jews.
ME: >AND THAT WAS THE *POINT* OF THE ARTICLE. YOU *FINALLY* GOT IT.
racist zionist Tosh/Trash: "Excuse me but the implication of that ridiculous "article" was that the Israeli lobby was somehow more powerful and influential than most other lobbies."
WELL, LET ME ASK YOU:
I'LL ASK YOU AGAIN! -- ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE ISRAEL LOBBY IS *NOT* A POLITICALLY POWERFUL LOBBY WITH GREAT INFLUENCE IN WASHINGTON?
AND I'LL ASK YOU -- IS THE ISRAEL LOBBY ONE OF THE MORE POWERFUL AND INFUENTIAL LOBBIES IN WASHINGTON OR IS IT ONE OF THE *WEAKER* AND *NON-INFLUENTIAL* LOBBIES THAT MOST CONGRESSIONAL POLITICIANS JUST IGNORE?
*** LET'S SEE IF OLE RACIST ZIONIST TOSH WILL ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS. ***
Now, I *know* that Zionists aren't too bright -- and thus certainly don't have much reading comprehension, but...
The *THESIS* and scope of the article, called "The *Left* and the Israel Lobby", was that certain Leftist icons (mostly Jewish) were *fallaciously* dismissing the power and influence of the Israel lobby. Having said that, I hasten to say that other Jewish figures (like Ed Herman, Jeffrey Blankfort, Ilan Pappe, Dennis Bernstein, etc., and now, to a certain extent, Norman Finkelstein) have criticized those former Leftist icons for dismissing the Israel lobby.
And, if the article is so ridiculous why don't *YOU* write YOUR OWN article and submit it to Dissident Voice or CounterPunch?
>> racist zionist Tosh/Trash: "If you make an assertion, gather the relevant evidence to back it." racist zionist TOSH/Trash: "THERE'A BEEN A ***HUGE*** JEWISH PRESENCE IN PALESTINE ... FOR *CENTURIES*!!!" (caps, *'s, and !'s added.)
ME (*MOCKING* Tosh!): >CARE TO **DOCUMENT** THAT? It's pretty obvious you've never had any training as an historian, political scientist, journalist, social scientist, or any other discipline that requires proof to back up assertions. Forcefully worded opinions are not evidence. If you make an assertion, gather the relevant evidence to back it. TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR YOU, I'LL EVEN LET YOU GOOGLE IT on the internet. You'd actually have to leave your computer and do some real academic work to back the accusations you throw out wildly. Gather your materials, put them into context, source them, double check them. Then get back to us.
racist zionist WEASEL Tosh/Trash: "As for documentation of a Jewish presence in Palestine..."
HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA...!!
>> racist zionist TOSH/Trash (Thursday Aug 3rd, 2006 8:33 PM): "THERE'A BEEN A ***HUGE*** JEWISH PRESENCE IN PALESTINE ... FOR *CENTURIES*!!!" (caps, *'s, and !'s added.)
Where's the *BEEF*!? DON'T GIVE US *BULLLSHIT*!! GIVE US THE **DEMOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION** AND BREAKDOWN!?
SHOW US THE HISTORICAL %'S!! THEY'RE WIDELY AVAILABLE.
>> racist zionist Tosh/Trash: "If you make an assertion, gather the relevant evidence to back it."
ME: >(You see, I already know the answer to this -- BECAUSE I'M *SMARTER* THAN YOU ARE -- but you won't appreciate the learning experience if you don't find out for yourself. Of course, when/*IF* you EVER *document* your claim for us, you'll end up making a *FOOL* of yourself, but that won't be the first time. Feel free to even use Israeli Jewish historians/documents. You see, I'm just *that* confident.)
racist zionist Tosh/Trash: "Crimes were committed during the formation of the state of Israeal on both sides."
On *BOTH* sides!!???
SPOKEN LIKE A TRUE RACIST!!
So, the native people who were *INVADED* AND *DRIVEN OFF* committed the crime of ... -- OH, *NOW* I GET IT!!: NOT BEING *JEWISH*!!
WHAT CRIMES DID THE JEWISH VICTIMS OF THE NAZI HOLOCAUST COMMIT -- "ON *BOTH* SIDES"?
(I'm just curious, racist zionist Tosh/Trash: if a woman is brutally raped, do you accuse her of wearing a skirt that was too short or a blouse that was too open?)
racist zionist Tosh/Trash: "You have failed on numerous challenges to prove your points."
Well, I'm willing to let the *readers* decide based on the excerpts I've taken from the article and from Jeffrey Blankfort's article. Somehow I think the readers of Dissident Voice, the Penninsula Peace & Justice Coalition, numerous other online publications from the U.S. to Canada that published the article, Indymedia and KALW-FM's "Your Call Radio" program will come up with a *different* conclusion. Or, is *that* what you're *afraid* of?
WE'LL BE *WAITING* for the answers to the questions posed to *YOU* -- the ones at the beginning of this post -- and those *DEMOGRAPHIC* %'s about the *HUGE* presence of Jews in Palestine for *CENTURIES*. What was, the % of Jews in Palestine before the Zionist colonization project? Again, you can even use Israeli *JEWISH* sources! HA-HA-HA...!!
>> racist zionist Tosh/Trash: "If you make an assertion, gather the relevant evidence to back it."
As for the rest of your *RACIST* drivel, I'M ACTUALLY *GLAD* THAT YOU PUT THIS JEWISH RACISM OF YOURS ON DISPLAY TOO (NOW *TWICE*) FOR THE READERS -- SO THAT I CAN ALWAYS REFERENCE YOUR COMMENTS, AS A PERMANENT RECORD, TO OTHERS.
WHY DON'T YOU JUST GO JOIN THE KKK?
OH, I *FORGOT*...! YOU *ARE* IN THE KKK -- THE SO-CALLED 'LIBERAL' *POSE* OF THE *ZIONIST JEWISH* KKK.
TO THE RACIST ZIONIST TOSH/TRASH:
by more zionist DIVERSION, Saturday, Aug. 05, 2006 at 5:29 PM
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2006/07/169468_comment.php#172925