-
AFGHANISTAN
A Realist Take
-
HISTORY LESSON
What to Learn From Weimar
-
'PEACE TALKS'
Going Nowhere Fast
Posted By Stephen M. Walt
Friday, December 4, 2009 - 10:36 PM
Share
There is an amazing story in Ha'aretz today on the "pro-Israel" litmus test that determines who is permitted to serve in the United States government. Here's the sort of lede you're not likely to read in the New York Times or Washington Post:
Every appointee to the American government must endure a thorough background check by the American Jewish community.
In the case of Obama's government in particular, every criticism against Israel made by a potential government appointee has become a catalyst for debate about whether appointing "another leftist" offers proof that Obama does not truly support Israel."
The story goes on to rehearse what happened to Chas Freeman (whose appointment was derailed by the Israel lobby because he voiced a few mild criticisms of Israel's behavior) and reports that similar complaints are now being raised against the appointment of former Senator Chuck Hagel. Even more bizarrely, the Zionist Organization of America and other rightwing Jewish groups are complaining about the appointment of Hannah Rosenthal to direct the Office to Combat and Monitor Anti-Semitism. Why? Apparently she's been involved with J Street and other "leftwing" organizations that ZOA et al deem insufficiently ardent in their support for the Jewish state, and has suggested that progressive forces need to be more vocal in advancing the peace process.
One has to feel a certain sympathy for Ms. Rosenthal, who is forced to defend her own appointment by telling an interviewer:
I love Israel. I have lived in Israel. I go back and visit every chance I can. I consider it part of my heart. And because I love it so much, I want to see it safe and secure and free and democratic and living safely."
These are fine sentiments, but isn't it odd that she has to defend her qualifications for a position in the U.S. government by saying how much she "loves" a foreign country? For an American official in her position, what matters is that she loves America, and that she believes anti-semitism is a hateful philosophy that should be opposed vigorously. Whether she loves Israel or France or Thailand or Namibia, etc., is irrelevant. (And yes, it's entirely possible to loathe anti-Semitism and not love Israel).
But the real lesson of all these episodes is the effect of this litmus test on the foreign policy community more broadly. Groups in the lobby target public servants like Freeman, Hagel, and Rosenthal because they want to make sure that no one with even a mildly independent view on Middle East affairs gets appointed. By making an example of them, they seek to discourage independent-minded people from expressing their views openly, lest doing so derail their own career prospects later on. And it works. Even if the lobby doesn't manage to block every single appointment, they can make any administration think twice about a potentially "controversial" choice and use the threat to stifle open discourse among virtually all members of the mainstream foreign policy community (and certainly anyone who aspires to public service in Washington).
The result, of course, is the U.S. Middle East policy (and U.S. foreign policy more generally) is reserved for those who are either steadfastly devoted to the "special relationship" or who have been intimidated into silence. The result? U.S. policy remains in the hands of the same set of "experts" whose policies for the past seventeen years (or more) have been a steady recipe for failure. If a few more Americans read Ha'aretz, they might start to figure this out.
If this is not an example of Israel's stronghold over the U.S. Government, then I do not know what is. It is coming to the point where Washington D.C. is an extension of Tel Aviv. In fact, I am beginning to suspect that the United States Government is sacrificing the Middle East Peace Process in order to sustain the "special relationship." But why? What has Israel done for the United States recently, instead of making President Obama look like a passive politician in the pockets of the Jewish establishment? They certainly have not looked after our interests in the same way we have looked after theirs for the past six decades. Yet we are afraid of alienating a state that is acting more like Apartheid South Africa can the only democracy in the Middle East. And believe me, I use the term democracy loosely in this context.
For readers of this blog, does anyone remember that infamous American principle of free speech and free expression? Apparently our lawmakers on the Hill have forgotten the concept. Now public servants have to shut their mouths and keep their policy opinions to themselves in order to improve their chances for career success. God forbid our government should question Israel's ILLEGAL occupation in the West Bank. God forbid we should criticize P.M. Netanyahu's refusal to compromise with the Palestinians, lest we alienate the powerful Zionist lobby in the United States.
But perhaps I should not be too upset. After all, if I was a politician raking in millions of dollars a year from pro-Israel lobbying organizations, I would hold off on spouting my views as well. Like many things in international politics, policy behavior is a two-way street; Israeli intimidation on the one hand and American dependence on the other.
Sadly, this is now the status-quo of the "special relationship" Israelis and Americans speak of so proudly. Special for the Israelis, but obviously not so special for the United States.
http://depetris.wordpress.com
US Support for Israel Primary Motivation for 9/11
What motivated the 9/11 hijackers? See testimony most didn’t:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg&feature=PlayList&p=F81BB573C9C0C7B2&index=0&playnext=1
http://tinyurl.com/5nlhs6
The Gorilla in the Room is US Support for Israel (also look up 'Israel as a terrorist's motivation' in the index of James Bamford's 'A Pretext for War' book):
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/08/05/the-gorilla-in-the-room-is-us-support-for-israel.php
http://tinyurl.com/npvwbh
What an overreaction. Typical of the Lobby-bashers. I bet you Jpost and Haaretz do these stunts to get a readership abroad!
Nothing in the piece suggests any special vetting takes place - merely that Israeli lobbies are vigilant on Israel related appointments.
How is this work any different from appointments monitored by ACLU and other left-wing groups, or anti-Abortion activists. Sure, the Lobby is active, and?
Yet Haaretz goes the extra mile, with a conspiratorial one liner:
Every appointee to the American government must endure a thorough background check by the American Jewish community.
Again - nothing suggests any kind of special vetting takes place at the administrative level. All the article describes, is that like any lobby, Armenian or Greek, or Turkish, the Israel lobby keeps tabs on important appointments, and fights against those it considers contrary to its aims.
Democracy at work. Praise be to our Founders!
from Walt's usual analysis of this subject is how INCREDIBLY competitive Israel advocacy is in the United States. The fight for the same dollars from the same people means that these organizations have to be ridiculously strident in their pronunciations to get heard and raise money. As part of that competition for who can scream the sky is falling loudest, they also have target even trivial issues, i.e. Rosenthal, random academics, throw away lines in wire service copy, etc.
People also overstate the role of the Israeli government in these efforts, as well as the level of coordination between the different organizations. The competition is so fierce that the Israeli government agencies charged with public diplomacy usually try to stay out of these battles (although they are rarely disappointed with the result). For example, pressure for Ambassador Oren to stay away from J Street did not come from Israel -- it came from more right-wing American organizations that the Israeli Foreign Ministry did not want to piss off.
Further, it should also be noted that anywhere from a third to a half of all the money raised for primary elections in Israel comes from the United States. That's officially; unofficially, the percentage is higher.
So when we are talking about the Israeli lobby in the US and its activities, it is important to keep in mind how very American the whole thing is (Israel is mainly the trophy). In other words, don't blame the Jews; blame our First Amendment right to oligarchy.
Finally, the Israeli press (Haaretz, especially the English version, is not representative of mainstream Israeli opinion) talks a lot, and rather openly, about the role of Jewish organizations and Jewish money in American politics. It is something that affects Israelis a great deal, and not something they have a tremendous amount of control over. They do a worse job covering the Christian Zionists in the US, for reasons I won't get into.
I think Sir/Madam, reading the article itself indicates, that Natasha Muzkavaya, is actually indicating that the whole affair, is actually an Amercian internal affair. She is saying Amercian Zionists are running the political show in the USA in the interest of Israel. The various pro-Israel American-Jewish lobbies may well be divided over millions of things, but are they so when it comes to Israel?. Just curious.
khairi janbek.paris/france
"In the interest of" is a meaningless phrase. What is "in the interest of America"? Well, ask a bunch of Americans or foreigners and you will get diverse, and often contradictory responses. Ditto for Arabs, Israelis, etc.
As a discursive practice and a statement about political culture, yes this is true. People that care about Israel from J Street to Klein will phrase their arguments as what's in Israel's interest, but it is the predicate that is more important: It is in Israel's interest, for all Chinese to eat Cheetos, or fill in the blank for your favorite.
The reality is that Israel and wider Levant is of little strategic consequence to the United States -- look at international trade volumes. What's peculiar about the situation is that you have a very small foreign policy issue with outsized international focus, media attention and political currency. In some ways, this makes sense. If you are relatively unimportant and vulnerable to larger strategic considerations, you shriek the loudest (the squeaky wheel theory of politics) to get your table scraps.
The Hebrew prophet, Ariel Sharon, once said the Americans will leave the region and that Israel had to prepare for that day. That is very true, although it is unclear when that day will come. The larger historical reality, however, helps explain why some Israel advocates are soooo aggressive in their political tactics.
Finally, the author of the piece is writing in English for Haaretz so her audience is undoubtedly American Jews of a certain political disposition. Thus her focus: this is an American phenomenon. That does not mean it describes reality, nor does it mean it is not relevant, but you have to locate the speaker and their audience to understand what is being said and its relevance.
Cheers.
Locate both the speaker and audience. Each perspective will define the article of Ms. Muzkavay according to whether they are Arabo-centric, Israelo-centric, American-Centric etc.. etc as I wrote below. Therefore the beauty of the piece is that, it is open to interpretation according to all those differences. I still can't figure out if it appeared in the Hebrew edition of Ha'aretz. Greetings.
khairi janbek.paris/france
With no disrespect, does the tail wag the dog or the dog wag the tail?. Natasha Mozkavaya seems to think that the tail wags the dog, and short of calling on an Amercian "intifada" against the Amercian Jewish lobby groups, she has managed to write a very intelligent article with a message, that can be read from various perspectives, differently.
I really don't know if the article appears in Ha'aretz Hebrew edition {I can't open it for the time being}, but if it does, I think if I was an Israeli citizen, I would take comfort that, no matter what President Obama says or promises, the Jewish groups hold him from where it hurts. And myself as comer from the Arab world, and I do not claim represnetation here of anyone, I can see it from an Arabo-Centric perspective, that, Ms. Mozkavaya is trying to say that, the Arabs should not hope anything to be done in their favour by President Obama, without Israel's consent. Moreover, if the Arabs need to lobby the USA for anything, then they will have to run to Israel, to do the effective lobbying for them.
The article has a sting in the tail, from whichever perspective anyone looks at it.
khairi janbek.paris/france
The more stories like this I read, the more I flash back to Washington's farewell address:
...[N]othing is more essential, than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. [...] [A] passionate attachment of one Nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite Nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite Nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the Nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, (who devote themselves to the favorite nation,) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
This is why the US is hated in the middle east.
Why bother pretending we are a impartial arbitrator?
Office to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism??????????????
What? There is an "Office to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism" in the State Dept?
Steve you are probably being probed.
What do they do all day long? Issue propaganda that Hummus is Israeli?
F. that! I want my taxes back from that office.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_To_Monitor_and_Combat_Anti-Semitism
Israel deserves its excellent relations with the US.
Israel-bashers have an anti-US agenda and are therefore not appropriate for US political office.
The "marketplace of ideas" is a central and essential component of an effective democracy. When certain ideas are deliberately suppressed, the power of democracies to identify the best ideas is weakened, and with it, the democratic process itself. It is clear that the Israel lobby (as well as many others) attempts to promote ideas/policies that it favors. While there is nothing patently illegal about this, the Israel Lobby's influence is sufficiently great not only to strike fear into those holding (or seeking to hold) elective office, but also those seeking appointive positions in our government, as Prof. Walt and others point out. In the meantime, the American people are being deprived of the full and open debate regarding U.S. middle eastern policy that is so badly needed. We have in effect a perfectly legal lobby which does the bidding of the Israeli government. This state of affairs has thereby subverted the democratic process as it applies to American foreign policy in the middle east. Moreover, our media is filled with Israeli apologists and--while it pretends to be a true fifth estate--it suppresses and/or distorts the other side of the story. What is to be done?
well put.
but you say: We have in effect a perfectly legal lobby which does the bidding of the Israeli government.
Not quite. It does the bidding of the RIGHT WING militant ISraeli polity.
Many Jews HATE AIPAC.
. . . and it's important that people at large realize this.
And to recognize the courage it takes for anti-AIPAC Jews to speak out.
It's relatively easy for an anti-Zionist goy to argue against the lobby, most of us -- unless we enter politics or actually start to change minds -- are not going to face the kind of withering personal attacks that Jewish objectors will receive from their OWN communities. Especially if they make their position publicly.
With Israel, the military/industrial war party has a very effective tool to blunt a community that in the past has worked actively against our senseless wars. Lyndon Johnson expressed no small rage when he learned that many Jewish Americans opposed the Vietnam adventure. (If he'd heeded their ideas, he'd have served two terms.)
"What about their support of Israel?" he shouted.
There were obviously some alert militarists listening. A number of Zionist fanatics -- Wolfowitz et. al. -- have been recruited and promoted into positions of power where they can help lead the charge. Now, the US has to be "strong' and "fight terrorism" to, among other things, defend Israel -- whose leaders have isolated it and us in much of the world.
Sinister and brilliant.
Well, if most American Jews hate AIPAC, they need to say it loudly and consistently.
Apparently, most American Jews don't hate it enough to repudiate AIPAC's tactics or to disavow the "wonderful" results [from an Israeli/pro-Israel POV] AIPAC has manged to generate over the last several decades with so little effort on it's part and such predictable monotony.
Can someone explain: we are supposed to be allies with Israel.
I understand that we help Israel A LOT: like $5billion/yr.
What does Israel do for us?
Great question!! The answer is quite obvious to me; absolutely nothing, unless you count repeated Israeli defiance over the Mideast Peace Process as a benefit. The "special relationship" has done nothing to improve the American position in the Middle East. In fact, Washington's unquestioned support for Israel has only weakened our leverage abroad. It is quite hard to achieve U.S. objectives in the region when a vast portion of the Islamic world views the United States as a nation willing to promote a 21st century version of Apartheid. Is this strong language? Perhaps. But even the most irrational Zionist can attribute to this fact. Israel is quickly becoming a state whose policies are reminiscent of a classic system of segregation (Palestinians are still not granted the same voting rights as Israeli citizens). And yet, the world's primary defender of democracy continues to endorse this behavior.
It is sad to say, but we have now transformed into a country that throws away universal democratic principles in support of Israel's ILLEGAL occupation of the West Bank. American interests are now secondary to Israeli concerns. Not a very smart order for any political ideology.
http://depetris.wordpress.com
True! Jordan illegally annexed it in like 1948, Little Satan happened across it in a victorious desperate counter attack. It's disputed turf - but not illegal
I think you have strange notions of legality/illegality.
Jordan became a member of the UN, in December 1955, on the basis of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, composed of the east and west banks of the Jordan River. The unity of the two banks which composed the Kingdom was acknowledged by the UN as the basis for becoming a member state.
Now, this can hardly be said about the Israeli occupation, can it?. I mean the countless UN resolutions against the Israeli occupation testify to that.
khairi janbek.paris/france
First of all, Walt is being openly evasive by pretending that Chas Freedmans appointment was solely due to his virulently anti-Israel views. Even a wikipedia search reveals how his ties to the Saudi Arabians and other shady dealings made him completely incapable of serving such a high position of intelligence. Further, Israel supports all the similar democratic values that America does amidst a sea of dictators, and is facing a multitude of existential threats that mostly derive from Iranian control. Professor Walt is very aware of this, and unless hes anti-Semitic *(which countless reputable academics have charged), he at minimum is not concerned with the ability of Israel to survive. I also read his defense to the infamously anti-Israeli and systematically destroyed piece of anti-Semitic trash the likes haven't seen since the Protocols of Zion. Point being, Israel was of great help to the US during the Cold War, which Walt also acknowledges. His main thesis if your unaware is that Israeli interests are now detrimental to US vital strategic interests, rather than in the past when they were mutually beneficial. However, unless you truly are content with Iran wiping Israel off the face of the earth, how can you rationalize not continuing to aid its most steadfast and reliable ally. Frankly, its a shame that Israel is painted in such a narrative that people dont realize how much the state has done to achieve piece, only to be spat in the face. Do you want to stop aid to Britain, just because it killed civillians in Afghanistan? I mean its a total double standard to single out Israel for doing the same things Western countries are currently doing in COIN warfare, albeit with MUCH less media coverage. Just come on, give Israel a chance. If they had a viable negotiation partner, peace would have been achieved LONG ago. And Prof. Walt knows this too. To watch him spew this nonsense is irrational considering the fact that his selective memory and inherent bias only allows him to throw Israel under the bus, despite his knowledge of the reality on the ground. Its flat out academic dishonesty on his part.
scott goose wrote:
"To watch [Walt] spew this nonsense is irrational considering the fact that his selective memory and inherent bias only allows him to throw Israel under the bus...."
I've always been intrigued by the absolutely common use of this kind of language by Israeli partisans against those who argue to reduce or eliminate U.S. support for Israel: I.e., "throwing Israel under the bus," or "betraying" Israel or etc.
Just who exactly do such people think they are to be passing such supreme judgment on the supposed moral obligations America owes to Israel?
Forget the idea of where such obligations came from; that of course is never mentioned.
Upon reflection nor is their self-assumed moral superiority either I guess: one is just left to believe that they feel this is self-evident as in ... "I am an Israeli partisan, ergo, I am more moral than you." ("And I hereby proclaim from that perch the United States' eternal obligation to ever and forever subsidize Israel up the kazoo no matter what it does and no matter how harmful that is to the U.S.")
Again, nust who do these people think they are?
And no wonder Israel always appears to be so ungracious about U.S. aid; after all it's apparently been our *duty* to provide it all along....
The viable negotiation partners were ...
The viable negotiation partners were either killed or held in prison. Get with the facts.
If a lowly civil servant or FSO had professed loyalty to a foreign state, their clearance would be revoked.
Israel did sod-all to help the US in the Cold War. They couldn't wait for its end to bring in thousnds of Russian immigrants.
I challenge anyone to give me a single instance of an action the Israelis took to help the US in the Cold War.
Not one single action.
They were preoccupied with suppressing their natives, and attacking their neighbours.
The US doesn't owe the Israelis anything. It is only the influence of the very clever and ruthless Israel Lobby that is winning the day, in what is still, basically, a decent America.
Imagine any other nation in the world that fancies itself to be a major power enduring this kind of humiliating situation.
The US president had just been publicly spanked and made to stand in a corner by a client state that owes its minute-by-minute existence to -- the US.
Now, this client state is bragging about its extraterritorial rights and powers in the affairs of its benefactor.
Nothing Obama says to any other national leader can change the fact that his options are strictly circumscribed by this arrogant and apparently untouchable foreign intrusion into our affairs.
I really wonder, to what extent American public opinion, and American politicians, are pro-Israel with or without the American Zionist groups influence?.
I have a feeling that gradually, we are coming to the conclusion that, neither American public opinion, is responsible for the way its outlook is formulated, nor American politicians are responsible for the manner in which they formulate US foreign policy vis a vis Israel.
So, Had it not been to the US Zionist groups' super influence, the US public opinion towards Arabs, and the US foreign policy in the Middle East would have been different?. I don't know, but I think humbly we are entering the danger zone of, implying that the US has abdicated all its resposnibilities; popular and official, in favour of a pretender group called the American Zionist lobby.
If Natasha Muzkavaya, wants to say that the Israel is invincible in its influence, then she is rather succeeding very well, even perhaps beyond her own expectations.
khairi janbek.paris/france
. . . that the American public opinion s responsible for the formulation of our foreign policy is precious, to be polite.
As another posting on this site shows,
http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/12/03/the_american_public_is_pretty_realist_the_american_public_is_also_pretty_dumb#comments
- - - the American public is isolationist. Actually, has been through two world wars, Korea, Vietnam, etc. And our subservience to the Zionist lobby is long-standing. Just one example:
"The Jackson-Vanik amendment is contained in Title IV of the 1974 Trade Act and is named after its major co-sponsors, Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson (D-WA) and Rep. Charles Vanik (D-OH). The amendment was intended to allow people, refuseniks and religious minorities, mainly Jews, to emigrate from the Soviet Union. After both houses of the United States Congress unanimously voted for its adoption, President Gerald Ford signed the amendment into law on January 3, 1975. It is still in force."
How often does a legislature like ours pass something unanimously?
The Zionist lobby has just publicly humiliated our president, who foolishly did something (the settlement demand) without consulting them.
It is earning us the contempt of the world. Imagine any other world leader yielding to the insolent demands of a client state, because of a domestic lobby.
I think it is important to ask...
had the current washington administration, was not well pre-disposed towards Israel, would it have accepted what your good self calls "humiliation"?. Isn't the administration of President Obama, merely continuing the long line of American well pre-disposition towards Israel by the various Washington administrations, with or without the Zionist Amercian lobbies?.
Moreover, if Amercian public opinion is "isolationist" or disinterested, can we say that this public opinion is out of the formula when it comes to making a position over US foreign policy towards Israel?. If that is the case, then is the US Midlle East Policy entrusted to the Zionist groups in the US, and this Washington administration is not responsible for its own decisions, therefore, not accountable to the "isolationist"/disinterested American public opinion over this matter?. To whom it would be accountable then?, the people of Israel?.
khairi janbek.paris/france
. . . because it wants a second term.
Only the world, which the American public only dimly perceives -- sees the incredible humiliation and stark demonstration of the lobby's power. We have earned the most dangerous kind of reaction -- contempt.
Oh, we're still dangerous, but anyone who listened to Obama's Cairo speech should be either enraged or laughing.
Yes, the Zionist lobby runs American Mideast policy, has for some time now. As this article in the Israeli press demonstrates, they even brag bout it. Yes, our government is accountable to the government of Israel, courtesy of this powerful body inside our nation.
The last US president (the elder Bush) who (mildly -- and ironically on the settlements issue)defied the lobby was defeated in the next election, and a VERY pro-Israel president, Bill Clinton, succeeded him.
Coincidence? I think not.
Our government is not "accountable" to us on so many issues, this one scarcely stands out. I don't want to wander off into other topics, but if you notice, we voted for "change" and got -- mostly the same.
Oh, the new president is a better speaker and much more reasonable-sounding than the "alternative."
Sir/Madam, would it be correct to assume, that such a non-representative government; as exists in the US currently; over many issues as your good self is saying, cannot recognise any common grounds with Israel, except for the fact that, both are settlers nations?. Would that mean all the other virtues that both countries recognise in each other supposedly, are sheer subterfuge talk?.
khairi janbek.paris/france
. . . can be found between many nations. A nation may share some characteristics, beliefs etc. with another, but their interests can be opposed.
Saudi Arabia and Iran are both Muslim nations, they share many common ideas and values, yet their policies are frequently in opposition.
In the case of Israel, its frequent citation of "democratic values," which really only apply to Jews, doesn't really resemble ours that closely. Unlike Israel, which declares itself a "Jewish state," the US doesn't declare itself a "Protestant nation" or a "white nation" even though those are majorities here.
Israel is an apartheid state, with a way of looking at its population as a "people" that fits well with some of the discredited notions of the 19th and 20th centuries.
That many nations and countries, have commonalities as well as differences, but what would be the commonalities between Israel and the USA, to draw them so closely; apart from being both settlers nations, to base their common interests?.
khairi janbek.paris/france
"In the case of Israel, its frequent citation of "democratic values," which really only apply to Jews."
While Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza do not have the right to vote, over 2 million Arab-Israelis exercise this right and have been doing so for decades. There are three Arabic parties which currently hold seats in the Knesset.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balad_%28political_party%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Arab_List
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ta%27al
But what I am trying to work out, since your good self doesn't seem to have any inhibitions talking about he subject, and I assume your good self is an American, if there is more than my personal perception, about he close relationship between the USA and Israel, and their identification of common interests; based on both being settlers nations.
khairi janbek
I've generally assumed it was residual guilt over the holocaust, though Israel also gets portrayed as a state like the US.
as long as Israel defines itself as a "Jewish state" this will be meaningless.
"It is earning us the contempt of the world. Imagine any other world leader yielding to the insolent demands of a client state, because of a domestic lobby."
Could you please explain how this mighty lobby forced our President not to do what he so desperately wants to? You might want to scratch out lobby and replace it with Americans. A recent poll shows an almost 40% gap in the percentages of Americans who say they sympathize more with Israel than with the Palestinians - Ill let you guess which way this gap runs. There continues to be a clear majority of those that say they sympathize with Israel more than the Palestinians among both Republicans and Democrats, self-identified conservatives AND self identified liberals. CLEAR AND STRONG MAJORITIES. So Obama makes decisions on health-care, gay marriage, Afghanistan - and all this is chalked up to guaging the political mood of the country - but on an issue in which there is perhaps a clearer domestic concensus over most others - you attribute this position to some sort of lobby whose supposed "sinister" mechanisms for action you cant even describe.
Its no surprise that this is "earning us the contempt" of such bastions of enlightenment as Syria where people simply would not understand the concept of a leader being domestically accountable to the opinions of his or her constituents.
That some poll shows that 40% more Americans are "more sympathetic" with Israel (whatever that means, certainly not unconditional support) has noting to do with Obama's humiliating reversal.
There have been no referenda on our support for Israel, and Obama is clearly defying public opinion on Afghanistan and healthcare (the vast majority support a strong public option,)
No, Obama has the stomach to defy the people who voted for him.
What he lacks is the stomach to fight America's most powerful lobby, which has the political power and money to deny hi m a second term.
Yes, that's sinister.
"That some poll shows that 40% more Americans are "more sympathetic" with Israel (whatever that means, certainly not unconditional support) has noting to do with Obama's humiliating reversal."
Its not "some poll" - its just about every single poll of the past 40 years that asks the question - 80 Gallup polls, going back to 1967, Israel has had the support of an average of 46% of the American people compared to 12% for the Arab states/Palestinians. That means almost 9/10 Americans when asked consistently DECLINE to say they sympathize with the Palestinians - however you interpret that you must admit that the opinions of all the people here ranting about "Zionists" are NOT shared by the overwhelming majority of Americans (85%+). And no that dosent mean American's give Israel unconditional support - because neither does the US government! In fact, Obama and Hillary have made it very clear that they are upset with some of Israel's policies - just because they feel with a terrible economy, a nuclear and unstable Pakistan, and a losing war in Afghanistan - their political capital should not be spent right now forcing Israel's hand by cutting off military aid does NOT equal "unconditional support." Thats like saying, because the Obama might compromise on health-care and leave out a public option in order to pass other reforms hes giving "unconditional support" to Republicans.
It's unfortunate that you feel that even if he did do such a thing, Americans who disagree with him shouldn't feel safe to criticize his policy- which is basically all the original article is describing. By describing some press release that a right-wing pro-Israel lobbying group puts out as part of "sinister mechanisms of a lobby" it is in fact YOU who are attempting to silence people.
You are more than welcome in this country to form your own political lobbying group to sever our relationship to Israel - and if enough Americans agreed with you suddenly you would have a powerful lobby. How do you think the Israel lobby would silence you and your supporters? Come to your house and kill you? The problem is - that MANY MANY more Americans who feel strongly and care about this issue agree with AIPAC than agree with you. I fully support what J-Street, and AIPAC, and the American Task Force on Palestine are doing - they are doing the most Democratic activity thatyou can do in this country - "community organizing" - organizing people who feel strongly about an issue to make their opinions heard. If a majority of Americans shared your opinion and thought this was important enough for them to take a strong stand on - this whole "Israel Lobby" business would be irrelevant - all you need to do come election time is loudly campaign against Obama for caving in to the Israel lobby and rally around candidates like Ralph Nader or Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul and try to get a mass movement of Americans to join you. This is all AIPAC does - the only difference is they have the support of a critical mass of Americans who agree with them while you would not.
RE: "How do you think the Israel lobby would silence you and your supporters? "
This sentence that follows makes me curious.
"Come to your house and kill you?"
Why would you raise such a question? I'm comforted by the fact that my house is beyond the range of the IAF, I suppose, but should I be wary? Maybe I should alert others of this in case I meet with some unfortunate accident?
The grief that came to professors Walt and Mearsheimer when they issued their report answers your point quite nicely. If you read that report, you'll find all the examples you or any other reasonable person needs of ow the lobby operates.
Because a poll says (I'd really like to read the questions) that a majority of Americans don't "sympathize" with the Palestinians (difficult when Israel prevents journalists fro reporting from Gaza and much of the media is inclined to ignore Israeli outrages)doesn't translate into some powerful groundswell for Israel.
That's really a force among Jewish voters and Christian fundamentalists, who work actively to support everything Israel does.
Your idea that I'm trying to "silence" AIPAC is absurd -- akin to charging that people who criticize the NRA's powerful ability to squelch gun control are trying to limit free speech.
The real opponents of free speech on these issues are those who reflexively charge that opposition to Zionism constitutes anti-Semitism. People are getting bored with that, the effort to intimidate is rapidly losing its power.
"Why would you raise such a question? I'm comforted by the fact that my house is beyond the range of the IAF, I suppose, but should I be wary? Maybe I should alert others of this in case I meet with some unfortunate accident?"
LOLOL!
I'm sorry I stopped reading after this part. I can't take seriously anyone who would type this. I guess "IAF Jets" are the new "black helicopters." Walt and Mearsheimers next book should be "The Israel Lobby is coming to kill you!" Better wrap tin-foil around your head to protect against the Mossad radiowaves.
LOL
This must take some patience--calmly restating the obvious in the face of usual hysterics.
But it is important to do this, and above all avoid reacting in kind. Others should take note--the tone is very nearly as important as the content.
US Government is more pro-israeli than israelis themselves
Just read Yossi Sarid´s opinion column, "I have no brother", on today´s Haaretz, as he says:
"It's hard to be a Jew. Recently it's been even harder, and not because the whole world is against us, but because we are against the whole world. Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion was right. It's important what Jews do - and what we did was cut ourselves off, like an errant planet that has strayed out of orbit. The settlers have cut us off. The world is looking at us through its telescope and asking "Is this Israel?" I am also asking the same question."
A good reason to actually support J Street
There is ALWAYS a dynamic struggle between a nation's interests and its internal politics.
It happens EVERYWHERE.
Its a component of democracy that is based on "consent of the governed" in whatever governmental form (monarchy, republic, direct democracy).
The desire to apply only one's perception of what is reason to foreign or any other policy, is something that is possible in a dictatorship (benevolent or later inevitably suppressive).
If I were king.
The one bright shining light for Americans is that American Jews come in so many different flavors and have so many differing opinions.
One of my Jewish friends recently corrected me when I had expressed a hope for peace in Israeli/Palestinian relations. His comment was, "You don't understand, we don't need peace; peace is not good for Israel." He went on to explain that with peace came too much compromise and that as long as there is a simmering state of quasi-war, the Americans will be more generous and tend to look the other way as Israel expands slowly but relentlessly into the areas of their neighbors. Specifically, sharing the water from the West Bank Aquifer is the biggest hurdle. If Palestinians received the water that is rightfully theirs, then Israelis would not be able to fill their swimming pools and have a dip before synagogue. Basic human fairness and dignity needs to be applied more evenly and a huge number of American Jews understand this - hence J Street.
If your good self is interested, Marc Lynch has posted a message on his blog, reagrding US public opinion.
khairi janbek.paris/france
- - this?
"True, more say that the U.S. should mind its own business (49% to 44%) and a large majority (76%) say that the U.S. should concentrate on its own national problems. But at the same time, 58% of the public would support the use of force to prevent an African genocide, and 63% would support the use of force against Iran to prevent nuclear weapons. "
Did anyone ask them who they would want to exercise force to prevent African genocide and who should attack Iran? I suspect the answer might be very different if the answer would be the US.
In the substantive case we have before us, where US lives and treasure are at risk, there are and have been for some time now solid majorities repudiating both the Iraqi and Afghan adventures.
I also wonder if anyone explained to the the likely consequences of an attack on Iran? Gasoline costing maybe $50 at the pump and heavy US casualties and yet another costly war?
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
Read More
Sept. / Oct. 2010
-
Cover Story:
-
Exclusive:
-
Feature:
(84)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE