Been wondering why the US political system has been so useless at restraining the Israeli military's adventure in Lebanon? The Nation's Ari Berman has a very good story about all the behind-the-scenes work that the American Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC) has been doing to prevent any overt criticism of Israel's bombing.
On July 18, the Senate unanimously approved a nonbinding resolution "condemning Hamas and Hezbollah and their state sponsors and supporting Israel's exercise of its right to self-defense." After House majority leader John Boehner removed language from the bill urging "all sides to protect innocent civilian life and infrastructure," the House version passed by a landslide, 410 to 8.
AIPAC not only lobbied for the resolution; it had written it. "They [Congress] were given a resolution by AIPAC," said former Carter Administration National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, who addressed the House Democratic Caucus on July 19. "They didn't prepare one."
Berman's article brought to mind the debates that were stirred up a few months ago by the London Review of Books' story on the Israel Lobby. Of course, that article was not perfect; among the many criticisms of it which appeared, I thought that the best was Noam Chomsky's. In criticizing the portrayal of the "Jewish lobby" as being responsible for decades of awful and destabilizing US policy in the Middle East, Chomsky questioned whether it was possible to separate the interests and influence of American Jews from the obviously powerful US corporate lobby: particularly that of large oil companies, which benefit enormously from a Middle East which is constantly in strife and thus unable to unite to seriously challenge Western access to oil. Since America's Jewish population is well-integrated into all segments of society, Chomsky holds that it is impossible to separate out the influence of the Jewish lobby from that of the industrial lobby. In that case, Chomsky continues, talk of a Jewish lobby mainly serves to conceal that US policy is not decided by the American public, but by the wealthiest corporations.
This insightful analysis is typical of Chomsky. It highlights that all the public talk of supporting Israel as "America's greatest ally in the Middle East" could simply reflect a co-opting of the rhetoric of American Jewry by the corporate lobby in order to further its own interests.
But personally I have always thought that there was another explanation of bad American foreign policy which was simpler and much more obvious than Chomsky's. Namely, that American public education has miserably failed to create an awareness among Americans that they are citizens of the world, and that their foreign policy matters. This is probably due to both underfunded public schools and an individualist and self-absorbed culture; but the results are the same. Foreign policy is always irrelevant to US elections, which are decided on issues such as abortion, gun control and taxes (which are all fairly meaningless to the rest of the world). As a result, any US politician can view foreign policy as a political football which just has to be kicked away as soon as possible in whatever direction will produce the greatest applause from the crowd. Given the current realities of corporate and Israeli influence in the US, that produces the same effect as the hypothetical and yet completely unmeasurable "Jewish lobby".
I must confess that, many years ago, when I first read the Biblical account of the death of Moses, and the leadership of Joshua, into the "promised land", I found it odd that the "promised land" already belonged to another people (Philistenes?=Palistinians). Joshua actually sent spies into the land, who returned to report that grape bunches were so large that it took two men to carry one bunch. Why did God promise a land already occupied and settled by another people? With regard to U.S. support or complacency or silence, I heard one American politician quote the Biblical verse "I shall bless them who bless thee (Israel) and curse them who curse thee" as proof of a duty for Christians to support Israel.
http://www.templemount.org/heifer.html
One Protestant group has actually made efforts to breed a red heifer calf and present it as a present to Israel, because they believe that the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem will usher in their own version of Christ's second coming; and hence they see a symbiotic relationship between their own agenda, and that of Jews in Israel.
interesting post
Well said Zeeshan,
The insularity of the American public is a vast resource that will never be fully tapped. Much easier to have a monster in the closet (historically a Jew, a Blackman, an immigrant, a what's next) controlling everything than something so straightforward as their own irresponsibility towards global affairs.
Okay a bit of a rant follows, but hopefully is useful to the discussion. Sorry for the length.
And let me say this--the problem of "lobbies" and all that aside, take my general point here--Good for the so-called "Jewish Lobby." Good for the so-called "Corporate Lobby." Good for anyone who gets off their ass and promotes their own interests to the government and the world.
I was at a talk not too long ago during which the speaker explained how post 9/11 US Port Security demands were received by the EU and the ensuing debates. The long and short of it was this: The US goes to anyone it does business with and says, "You'll be implementing these security measures if you want to do business with us." The governments balk and declare this and that while private corporations who need to ship their products to the US had already agreed to build the special ports on their own dime.
It was the first moment when I realized that when I buy a t-shirt at Old Navy, I am fighting terrorism. Our consumer power made that happen. I was aghast. I wondered why the hell the US public doesn't use that power in other ways. We do not, cause we are lazy and ignorant and unwilling to look over our own borders.
We would have to control and direct our spending, we would have to had fought borderless trade, we would have had to have protected American jobs by keeping them here, no outsourcing, we would have to all agree to aid each other in our own self-interest.
But our own self-interest is limited in the sense that it is global and never simply for ourselves. Who are we if we are only for ourselves? Let's take a crazy example, Monsanto tried to copyright the various kinds of rice indigenous to India so that saving seed was illegal and Indian farmers would have to pay them to grow their own crops. What if all the US farmers stood by their brothers and sisters abroad, and all the US citizens stood by their farmers and their brothers and sisters abroad and said, "Uh, no."
Of course, I am dreaming here. Those American farmers no longer exist, they are mainly corporations because no one stood up and stopped the theft of the American farm. The reasons go on and on and they are all interconnected and immeasurable. The long and the short of it is summed up in Rabbi Hillel's famous words:
"If I am not for myself, who will be for me? And if I am for myself alone, what am I? And if not now, when?"
Laury - this post reminds me of something I wrote several years ago entitled "Earthly Paradise Is In Our Grasp" I am reminded of what I wrote by your notion that all the farmers might have joined together, or all the consumers might join together to to achieve some long range goal.
What these following excerpts are saying, in a "nut shell", is that the human race could accomplish amazing things if we could all cooperate and agree, and deny ourselves immediate gratification in order to achieve long range goals. But, we are forever doomed to failure at any such attempt to achieve unilateral agreement and resolve because of an evolutionary survival mechanism in our nature which assures diversity and disagreement.
http://literarydiscussions.myfreeforum.org/ftopic53.php
The pertinent excerpt follows:
http://literarydiscussions.myfreeforum.org/ftopic1061.php
Now, we might wonder why it is that people cannot get together and cooperate
work towards such long-range goals.
I try to answer this question in :
http://literarydiscussions.myfreeforum.org/ftopic1060.php
Sitaram, I'd love to read your comments but they are so long I just cannot. Your "pertinent excerpt" is longer than most of the blog posts on the main part of the site. Maybe you could sum up your views in a few paragraphs and give us links to the longer discussions should we want to go on? I know it would help me. I'd like to read what you say, but you need to take the medium of discussion into account.
Sorry. Yes, certainly, I can post a little summary, and put a link to the
detail, for anyone who might be interested.
I shall edit and shorten the posts later today.ÂÂ
>>unable to unite to seriously challenge Western access to oil.
Why would they want to do that? They'll go poor within weeks. Heck, even Venezuela still sells oil to anyone who bids the highest for it on the world market... Anyway, I find it hard to believe that oil companies *like* instability and have yet to see any proof. Sure, oil prices go up, but so do costs and it would only be a matter of time before political pressure reraches a boiling point due to popular resentment over expensive gasoline, not to mention inflation, which the government tries very hard to hold down to keep the economy humming and the citizenry happy. Hey, don't look at me like that; I CAN be bought, too just like anyone else ;-)
- A Salafi in worship, a Sufi in society, a Secularist in government.
This resolution is bullshit, Israel is a foreign policy liability for America, we should abandon her and allow her to engage in her own dirty "surgical aerial bombings" without US made ammunitions and planes.
Hamas recognized Israel's right to exist, before they started their bullshit in the Gaza on June 25th.
Reality check: Why do you suppose the neither the French, Russians, Germans or anyone western nations haven'tacted unilaterally at the UN and demanded a ceasefire? Why do you suppose that there will be no unilateral and non UN sanctioned intervention in Lebanon like there was in Kosovo?
Simply stated, ITBACH AL YAHUD! will no longer be tolerated as an acceptable political or religious ideology.
That smorgasbord of dysfunctional and corrupt Arab regimes will not longer be afforded the same consideraions as other countries.
Bigotry, racism and hate do not make for moral equals.
What are you?
A Zionist Jew?
Or some fanatical Christian who feels that Muslim suffering is a requirement for the Doomsday to arrive?
SC&A is a Pat Insanity cult member. He is one of a group including Gates of Viena, Shrinkwrapped and so forth who all suckle at the shriveled, poisoned black teet of Ann Coulter.
The complain about anti-semitism and then espouse a vile racism against Arabs.
In short: sick in the head.
SC&A is particularly addicted to negativity. It is easy to get it all fired up and angry. Be in the mood for a lengthy boring fit if you engage.
This one is a weed with deep roots in the manure pile.
Without denying Arab racism/anti-semitism against Isrealis and more broadly sometimes all Jewish people, is it possible that your analysis here is a touch narrow? Your analysis implies that what is going on between Isreal and Lebanon has something to do with Jewishness and that Isrealis and Jews abroad have not also employed the worst racist tactics in kind.
Ethnic identity certainly has a part to play in all this, but by focusing on that you lose perspective on the more important historical, economic, environmental, political factors at play.
Moreover, call me a cynic but I do not imagine that is "why" things are not moving along in the UN. I have the sneaking suspicion that the EU countries, etc., have such complicated relationships with the US and so with Isreal that sometimes one has to sacrifice one war to win another whether that be military, economic, political, or otherwise.
To make my point further, if you want to use Kosovo as your example you will also have to address Rwanda in the same context.
I sympathize with your frustration and disgust with anti-semitism. I'm just not sure that is what is going on behind all this. In a sense, I wish it were. It would gladden my heart to think that somewhere representatives were acting out of an ethical committment rather than political and economic expediency. If that were only true, this whole matter would have been ended long ago. Who would stand for the continued aggression and hatred between Isrealis and Arabs?
I would like to say that I noticed and deeply appreciated how you were careful to distinguish between Islamic doctrine qua its stated ideals and anti-semetism expressed by Arabs against Jews.
Gustavo mentions doomsday. When I feel down about this I wonder if it will only end when the world ends. Who can tell who did what to whom and when anymore? There is no monster, no one left to hate, only festering wounds that will never heal. God help us all.
OmarG, people will do lots of irrational things when sufficiently provoked. Today Iran did indeed threaten to use the "oil weapon".ÂÂ
I suspect its yet another ploy to sow fear among oil analysts to raise prices. Internally, Ahmadinejad was elected mostly on an economic platform; however the whole structure of the Islamic Republic precludes much of an economic recovery unless they do an about turn with regards to the state planning of the economy. THe only other way out is to increase revenue and with oil as its primary export, high oil prices are its only other way out. Right now, government salaries are behind and the different martyr's foundations which hold most of the government's assets are near insolvent; others are technically bankrupt but survive on direct subsidies. Iran's current bout of adventurism, in my eyes, has only been to distract domestic Iranian attention to the fact that Ahmadinejad can't deliver the economic goods he was elected for.
- A Salafi in worship, a Sufi in society, a Secularist in government.
Post new comment