This post is almost as long as the debate itself.....
Collected News about "The Lobby"
(Including The Harvard Report, and The Chomsky response)
*********************
America's Israeli Lobby can't handle The Truth :: How Israel's Lobby won & intimidated the West for Israel :: by Mohamed Khodr Monday
April 3, 2006
"The U.S. national interest should be the primary object of American foreign policy. For the past several decades, however, and especially since the Six Day War in 1967, the centerpiece of U.S. Middle East policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering U.S. support for Israel and the related effort to spread democracy throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized U.S. security. This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the United States been willing to set aside its own security in order to advance the interests of another state?"
-- From “The Israeli Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” by Professors John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard University’s John Kennedy School of Government.
“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act”.
-- George Orwell
Zionism, Israel, and the Almighty ISRAELI LOBBY: Theft of a Nation (Palestine), Theft of a Nation’s Foreign Policy (United States), Theft of the Truth, Theft of World Peace.
“The Modern Age is the Jewish Age, and the twentieth century, in particular, is the Jewish Century.”
--- Professor Yuri Slezkine, “The Jewish Century” , (Princeton University Press, 2004 (from Introduction): Professor Slezkine is Professor of History at U.C. at Berkeley)
"I am aware how almost impossible it is in this country to carry out a foreign policy [in the Middle East] not approved by the Jews. Former Secretary of State George Marshall and former Defense Secretary James Forrestral learned that.... terrific control the Jews have over the news media and the barrage the Jews have built up on Congressmen.... I am very much concerned over the fact that the Jewish influence here is completely dominating the scene and making it almost impossible to get congress to do anything they don't approve of. The Israeli embassy is practically dictating to the congress through influential Jewish people in the country"
-- Secretary of State John Foster Dulles in February 1957 quoted on p.99 in Donald Neff’s "Fallen Pillars", page 99
"I've never seen a president --I don't care who he is-- stand up to them [the Israelis]. It just boggles your mind. They always get what they want. The Israelis know what's going on all the time. I got to the point where I wasn't writing anything down. If the American people understood what grip those people have on our government, they would rise up in arms. Our citizens don't have any idea what goes on."
-- Admiral Thomas Moorer of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (See Washington Report 12/1999, p.124 quoting from Andrew Hurley's book, "One Nation Under Israel")
With a Chutzpah of power, fearlessness, and a complicit media, the Israeli Lobby’s lies and bigoted attacks against one of America’s globally renowned Professors at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, Professor Stephen, was possible because we Americans remain silent where Israel and its Lobby are concerned.
They could because of campaign donations to corrupt Congressmen, they could because of access to a Pro-Israel media that denies the voices of courageous, patriotic Americans opposed to Israel’s dominant influence on American foreign policy, they could because we neglect our civic and political responsibilities thus creating a political vacuum in Washington D.C. eagerly filled by special interest groups like the Israeli Lobby, a power second only to the AARP.
The vicious attacks by the Pro-Israelites upon two world renowned Professors, Professor Stephen Walt and Professor John Mearsheimer, authors of “The Israeli lobby”, have ironically proven the very thesis and argument of these two honorable academicians. In the long run, these two courageous Professors will be vindicated and honored for saving America’s children and economy, saving Israel’s future, giving Palestinians their freedom and independence, and ultimately, world peace.
“Ask not what you can do for your country; ask what your country can do for Israel”
-- The New and Improved John F. Kennedy Israeli Lobby Motto
“The enormous gap between what US leaders do in the world and what Americans think their leaders are doing is one of the great propaganda accomplishments of the dominant political mythology.”
-- Michael Parenti; Political Scientist and author of “Inventing Reality: The Politics of News Media”
These are the desperate end times that try Zionist souls who cling to lies, propaganda, and intimidating tactics in their tribal allegiance to a foreign nation, Israel, damn their host nation’s national interests or world peace.
America, have courage and be silent no more. Let’s liberate our nation from foreign entanglements adhering to the advice of George Washington who in his Farewell Address admonished his nation to avoid a “Passionate Attachment” to another nation, as such could create “the illusion of a common interest….where no common interests exist.”
"No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices."
-- Edward R. Murrow
The “Belfer Declaration” or the “Balfour Declaration”
Infested with historical irony, one of New York Sun’s editorials (a small Jewish paper leading the attack upon the two authors), March 23, 2006, is entitled “The Belfer Declaration”, calling for Jewish donors, like Mr. Belfer (Prof. Walt holds the Belfer Professorship), and others to ensure the Kennedy School of Government toes the Israeli line and cleanse itself of biased academicians who dare think, write, and question the Israeli Lobby’s influence on America’s foreign policy. The editorial states: “If those like the Belfers, Mr. Wexner, Senators Kennedy and Schumer, and scores of others with roots or a stake at Harvard aren't careful, the Kennedy School will become known the Bir Zeit (It’s Birzeit, a Palestinian University) on the Charles.” [1]
Why ironic? Because the founding of Israel began with a simple 68 word letter from England’s Lord Balfour to the wealthy Jewish Lord Rothschild supporting the Zionist claim to “a” Jewish state in Palestine. The Zionists claimed this as the “BALFOUR Declaration” and used it to pressure the U.S. Congress to support it, which they did.
"I have learned that the state of Israel cannot be ruled in our generation without deceit and adventurism."
-- Moshe Sharett, Israel's first Foreign Minister and later a Prime Minister, in Simha Flapan, "The Birth of Israel", 1987, page 51.
“The Arabs are right when they paint America as a great Zionist conspiracy”
-- Doughlas Rushkoff, Professor New York University, “Wrestling with Zion” (Grove Press, 2003) [2]
/emphasize> “The founding of the state of Israel required the dispossession of an indigenous group, the Palestinians…This is unignorable reality”
-- Tony Kushner and Alisa Solomon, Editors, “Wrestling With Zion” [3]
“We enthusiastically chose to become a colonial society, ignoring international treaties, expropriating lands, transferring settlers from Israel to the occupied territories, engaging in theft and finding justification for all these activities. Passionately desiring to keep the occupied territories, we developed two judicial systems: one - progressive, liberal - in Israel; and the other - cruel, injurious - in the occupied territories. In effect, we established an apartheid regime in the occupied territories immediately following their capture. That oppressive regime exists to this day.The Six-Day War's seventh day has transformed us from a moral society, sure of the justice of Israel's creation, into a society that oppresses another people, preventing it from realizing its legitimate national aspiration.”
-- Michael Ben-Yair, “The War’s Seventh Day” , Ha’aretz, March 3, 2002 (Michael Ben-Yair was Attorney General of Israel from 1993-96)
Tragically, the Jews were the main victims of the Holocaust, but other ignored victims of this devastation were the Palestinians, purged from their land, homeless, stateless, and in exile; America’s credibility, morality and foreign policy, world peace, and just as important--VERITAS (truth)-- became a long term casualty that has sustained Israel and its powerful beltway leash upon “our” Congress.
“Of all the somber ironies of history none throws a more sinister light on human nature than the fact that the new-style nationalist Jews, on the morrow of the most appalling…persecutions that their race had endured, should at once proceed to demonstrate, at the expense of the Palestinian Arabs…the crime of which they themselves had been the victims. to persecute, in their turn, a people weaker than they were.”
-- Alfred Toynbee, “A Study of History” , pg. 177, Oxford U Press, New York 1957
"Out of the original sins of the world against the Jews, grew the original sins of Zionism against the Palestinians,"
-- Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, “Original Sins”
Quotes on the Israeli Lobby: (Naturally all those quoted are “Anti-Semitic”, akin to the United Nations)
“We killed them out of a certain naive hubris, believing with absolute certitude that now, with the White House, the Senate, and much of the American media in our hands, the lives of others do not count as much as our own. Believing we really had the right to instruct 400,000 people to leave their homes within eight hours... and treat their homes as military targets...and drop 16,000 shells on their villages and small towns...and we have the right to kill without being guilty.... It was very important to us that the victims stay faceless, nameless people. People who are quite unreal."
-- Ari Shavet, Ha'aretz, "Qana: 102 Faceless Dead", May 21, 1996 (On Israel's Deliberate Attack and Murder of Lebanese and Palestinian Civilians taking Refuge in a United Nations Camp in Qana, Lebanon)
"..a frank look at Jewish power and influence in America today...a rare insider's portrait of the people, the institutions, the money, and the ideas that make up Jewish political influence in the U.S., from the Anti-Defamation League to the United Jewish Appeal, to the New York Times, to the...Jewish caucus in the House of Representatives...He details the absolutely vital role Jews play in Democratic party politics and fund raising. He describes the inner workings of the feared pro-Israel lobby....and its surprising role in shaping American foreign policy. He tackles......Jewish media influence."
-- J. J. Goldberg, Award Winning Editor, Forward, “Jewish Power”, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co, Inc., 1996 (from front jacket of the book)
“Our” American government would rather fight the entire world, especially the Muslim world with our children’s lives and endless deficits and debts than change it’s singularly blind allegiance and submission to Israel’s interests. Israel and its American Lobbies have ultimately indoctrinated our government and nation that the national interests of both nations are one and the same, what’s good for Israel is good for America. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
"If the interests of the two countries [Israel and the U.S.] were in automatic harmony, there would be no need of an Israel lobby here to see that Israel's interests are served. What we need now is an American lobby in Jerusalem. No, come to think of it, what we need is an American lobby in Washington."
-- Columnist Joseph Sobran (www.mideastfacts.com)
“America controls the world, we control America. Never before have Jews exerted such an immense influence on the center of world power.”
-- Uri Avnery, “The Night Before”, April 10, 2003, Counterpunch (Uri Avnery is a journalist, former publisher, served 3 times in Israel’s Knesset (Parliament), served In the Israeli Army Commando Unit (twice wounded), Peace Activist: For speaking out for Peace and against Israel’s Occupation, Mr. Avnery received a death threat from the leader of the "Jewish National Front", Baruch Marzel, who called upon the Israeli army to kill Uri Avnery (Ha’aretz March 21, 2006 and in Maariv) [4]
“….Indeed---the Machiavellian power machinations of persons… gave Israel carte blanche in the Middle East-- the craven subservience and political expediency of those members of Congress who have wanted the money and votes domestic pro-Israeli forces could deliver”
-- Cheryl A. Rubenburg, “Anti-Zionism: Analytical Reflections”, pg. 195 (Associate Professor of International Relations, Florida International University)
“The U.S. government has historically yielded to Israel’s demands and to pressure from the Israeli Lobby (p. 174)….One of the objectives of the Israeli lobby is to control the flow of information from the Middle East to the United States…Fearing reprisals from the Lobby, American journalists often cooperate with them by censoring information critical of Israel. (p. 184)
-- Former U.S. Senator James Abourezk, “Advise & Dissent: Memoirs of South Dakota and the U.S Senate”, Lawrence Hill Books, 1989
“Israel. There is certainly not a more difficult or dangerous issue to debate in the field of postwar U.S. foreign policy. The American political and social landscape is littered with the battered individuals---most recently the president of the United States---who dared to criticize Israel, or, even more heretically, to question the value to U.S. national interests of the country’s overwhelmingly one-way alliance with Israel. Almost every such speaker is immediately branded anti-Semitic and consigned to the netherworld of American politics….One can only react to this stunning reality by giving all praise to Israel’s diplomats, politicians, intelligence services, U.S.—citizen spies, and the retired U.S. officials and wealthy Jewish American organizations who lobby an always amenable Congress on Israel’s behalf. ….as Anatol Lieven has written, the Israelis have been so successful that Israeli nationalism, “for many Americans has become deeply intertwined with their American nationalism.” (p. 237 – 238)
-- Michael Scheuer, “Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror” , Potomac Books, Inc., 2004 (A highly respected former CIA Analyst on Terrorism)
The power of AIPAC’s political muscle on U.S. Foreign Policy was enshrined when President Ronald Reagan proposed selling 5 AWAC planes to Saudi Arabia. AIPAC’s power on Congress almost defeated the President of the United States. (House voted 301 – 111 to reject the sale, the Senate narrowly supported Reagan by 52 – 48).
“That paper-thin victory taught Reagan that even his popularity could barely overcome AIPAC disapproval….In the words of Cheryl A. Rubenberg, Professor of International Relations at Florida International University, “thereafter how a Senator voted on the issue became the most important factor in the Lobby’s determination of an individual’s ‘friendship’ toward Israel. Those who were labeled ‘unfriendly’ faced serious problems at reelection.”
-- George W. Ball (Former Undersecretary of State) and Douglas B. Ball, “The Passionate Attachment”, W.W. Norton & Company, 1992, p 110
“Congress, so Pro Israel by 1987 that it embraced almost all the legislative initiatives suggested by the AIPAC lobby.”
-- Yossi Melman and Dn Raviv, “Friends In Deed: Inside the U.S.-Israeli Alliance” Hyperion, 1994
"The Israeli Prime Minister has a lot more influence over the foreign policy of the United States in the Middle East than he has in his own country."
-- Former Congressman Paul Findley, in his book "They Dare to Speak Out", p. 92.
"The Israelis control the policy in the congress and the senate ...somewhere around 80 percent of the senate of the United States is completely in support of Israel -- of anything Israel wants."
-- The Late Senator William Fulbright, Former Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 10/07/1973 on CBS' "Face the Nation"
"President Clinton behaves like an obedient child of Israel and does not know how to say `No.'"
-- Nahum Barnea, Israeli writer (From Washington Report, July 1996, pg. 17)
"On the other hand, the president's (G.W. Bush) political advisors are afraid that if their boss doesn't find a way to remain on the fence, and tries to twist Sharon's arm, the prime minister won't hesitate to show the American voter who's the real boss in Washington"
-- Akiva Eldar, “People & Politics/U.S. Bosses, West Bank Factions, EU Mediators, Ha’aretz, October 14, 2003
"Nations see Jews as Key to Winning Favor with U.S.”.
-- Michael J. Jordan, Jewish Telegraph Agency, September 13, 2000
“The Israeli government is placed on a pedestal [in the US], and to criticize it is to be immediately dubbed anti-Semitic, as if the Palestinians were not Semitic….People are scared in this country [the US], to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful - very powerful. Well, so what? For goodness sake, this is God's world!”
-- Desmund Tutu, Former Archbishop of Cape Town, Noble Peace Prize 1984 “Apartheid in the Holy Land” , Guardian April 29, 2002
For decades any American who dares speak or write against the internationally condemned illegal, brutal, inhumane, and destructive Israeli occupation of an entire people, the Palestinians, incurs the wrath of the Israeli Lobby--most notably A.I.P.A.C. and the Anti Defamation League (A.D.L.), both of which have had encounters with Law Enforcement Agencies.
“Being dumb about the Middle East has become a habit on Capitol Hill, mainly because most members of Congress are unwilling to speak their minds, fearing what AIPAC itself has proudly called “Jewish Muscle.” That the Lobby can intimidate Congress, Presidential candidates, and Presidents as well as Jewish leaders is sure proof of its power.”
-- Edward Tivnan, “THE LOBBY” Jewish Political Power and American Foreign Policy”, A Touchstone Book (Simon & Schuster), 1987, page 12
The only rational explanation for an American policy of uncritical acceptance and submission to Israel’s interests and narrative of its wars, ethnic cleansing, massacres, invasions, terrorism, demolition of thousands of homes, creating refugees in their own land, lying and spying upon its sole benefactor (U.S.), even killing American citizens with impunity (USS Liberty & Rachel Corrie), while receiving over $1.6 Trillion tax dollars since 1973, which per American translates to over $5,700 (C.S.M. “Economist Tallies Swelling Cost of Israel to U.S.; David R. Francis, December 09, 2002), [5] America’s latest weapons and technology (selling it to third parties like China), damaging America’s world standing through America’s many imposed vetoes against dozens of U.N. Security Council Resolutions, even blackmailing America during the 1973 Yum Kippur War to transfer immediate weapons or Israel will use nuclear weapons is --- there are two American Governmental Policies: One for Israel, One for the rest of the world.
Some of the Pro-Israel Jews who’ve condemned the paper “The Israeli Lobby” in the media are: Alan Dershowtiz, Marvin Kalb, Dennis Ross, Daniel Pipes, Mort Zuckerman, Jeff Jacoby and others. These individuals share the agenda and goals of the Israeli Lobby in ensuring total American support for a foreign nation. A common theme in these commentaries is that the research was shallow, slipshod, biased, comparing it to the “Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion”; unworthy of a Harvard academic paper, that it recycles old canards, that it uses quotes from neo-Nazi hate sites drawing praise from David Duke, that the authors are liars and bigots. At no time did anyone directly refute, debate, or discuss the substantial merit of the paper; but simply attacking the messengers and not the message
Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, a civil libertarian and First Amendment Advocate, has been the most vocal critic of the paper and its two authors.
In the small Jewish owned paper, the New York Sun (March 24, 2006), in an article entitled “Harvard’s Paper on Israel Drew from Neo-Nazi Sites” by Meghan Clyne [6] Professor Dershowitz describes the quotes used in “The Israeli Lobby” as "The wrenching out of context is done by the hate sites, and then [the authors] cite them to the original sources, in order to disguise the fact that they've gotten them from hate sites… simply a compilation of hateful paragraphs lifted from other sources and given academic imprimatur." Such a statement by Dershowtiz is “Beyond Chutzpah”
In the Nation Magazine of July 11, 2005, Jon Weiner, Professor of History at the University of California, Irvine, wrote an article entitled; “Giving Chutzpah New Meaning.”
He writes: “Alan Dershowitz is…one of the most outspoken defenders of Israel, especially in his 2003 book “The Case for Israel”….(Professor Norman) Finkelstein challenges in “Beyond Chutzpah”….that Dershowitz "plagiarizes large swaths" of his book from Joan Peters's “From Time Immemorial”. Professor Weiner goes into more detail on this issue for those interested. (Also See: “The Case Against Israel” by Michael Neumann, CounterPunch, for a rebuttal of Alan Dershowitz)
Professor Weiner also writes of Alan Dershowtiz’s unheard of appeal to the Governor of California and the University of California Press in an attempt to stop the publication of “Beyond Chutzpah” given its literary criticism of his sourcing in the book “The Case for Israel” . To their credit both the Governor and the Press declined Dershowitz’s request. According to Professor Weiner, Dershowtiz first denied writing the Governor, than admitted it was “just a polite note.”[7]
This advocate of civil liberties has shockingly proposed toughening and duplicating Israel’s cruel torture and treatment of Palestinians for America’s war on terrorism. Israel is the only nation on earth that legally sanctioned torture. Dershowitz’s book “Why Terrorism Works: Understanding the Threat, Responding to the Challenge” was reviewed by James Bamford in the Washington Post ( “Making Them Talk” ) on September 8, 2002. Mr. Bamford describes Dershowtiz’s tactics against potential terrorists to include "torture warrants," collective punishment and national ID cards.” He quotes Dershowtiz as saying: "I am willing to think the unthinkable and move beyond any kind of conventional wisdom." Dershowitz proposes to demolish an entire Palestinian village as collective punishment for a suicide bomber, which, this legal expert should know is against international law. Bamford quotes Dershowitz: “The next time the terrorists attack," he said, "the village's residents would be given twenty-four hours to leave, and then Israeli troops would bulldoze the houses." Dershowtiz also proposes that the United States legalize “torture” like Israel by issuing “torture warrants” . Bamford continues: “One form of torture” recommended by Dershowitz — "the sterilized needle being shoved under the fingernails."
In another article in the New York Sun entitled “Kalb Upbraids Harvard Dean Over Israel” , by Meghan Clyne, on March 21, 2006, [8] Marvin Kalb, also of Harvard, is quoted as saying: “I do not regard this as a Kennedy School Research Paper, because it clearly does not meet the academic standards of a Kennedy School research paper” , although he did not elaborate on those academic standards.
To understand Mr. Kalb’s position “Over Israel” , one can read declassified conversations he had with Henry Kissinger during the Nixon Administration recently released via a FOIA from the National Security Archive and available at the State Department’s Electronic Reading Room. In a November 8, 1976 conversation with Kissinger, Mr. Kalb reveals his adoration of Kissinger and his passion for Israel, and Kissinger’s pro-Israel bias.
Marvin Kalb: [MK: “You know of my area of interest and passion. The fundamental thing is to carry on a policy that gives ISRAEL the best chance of surviving and maintains a strong, growing, viable American position in the Arab world. It has been your position.] [9]
Is supporting Israel the only acceptable academic standard in America today, or else?
In the same New York Sun article, other Jewish Pro-Israelites are quoted condemning the paper “The Israeli Lobby” . Among them are Mort Zuckerman, Daniel Pipes, and William Rapfogel, CEO of the Metropolitan Council on Jewish Poverty, who said the Sun "should be commended for exposing the Harvard Kennedy School's entry into the contest to succeed the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. To imply, as the report does, that there is a disloyal American Jewish population is a disgrace that Harvard and Kennedy should disassociate from immediately."
Daniel Pipes is the founder of CampusWatch.com whose sole purpose is to monitor, collect and intimidate Professors who teach in Academic Departments dealing with the Middle East (i.e. Israel). In Mr. Pipes own words (weblog: October 12, 2004): “When the University Sponsors an Antisemite. One of the premises of Campus Watch, the project to improve Middle East studies….is ‘The radical notions espoused in the classrooms and in campus demonstrations have recently had dangerous consequences. These are especially visible with regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict." Faculty statements and actions have been understood "as implicit permission to harass Jewish and pro-Israel students.” [10]
Not to be outdone in bashing America’s academia, Alan Dershowitz in an article in the Jerusalem Post entitled: “Enrolling in Anti-Semitism 101” , by Melissa Radler (December 5, 2002) describes “the US campus as a rumpus room of Anti-Israel campaigning”.
Dershowitz states: "There is no more cowardly group in the world than American academics…unwilling to engage in controversial stances”. Yet he denounces the authors of “The Israeli Lobby” for engaging in a controversial issue. He states he wrote his book “Why Terrorism Works”; “to help uneducated students counter anti-Israel bias on campus” ….He calls opponents of U.S, Israel; "Ignoramuses with PhDs, poets and psychologists who have no idea what they're doing".
Thus speaketh the defender of civil liberties, the First Amendment, and Academic Freedom---the defender of O.J. Simpson, Claus Von Bulow, and Mike Tyson.
In the same New York Sun Article, “Kalb Upbraids Harvard Dean over ISRAEL”, Dennis Ross is quoted saying the authors displayed “a woeful lack of knowledge on the subject…it’s lack of seriousness….it is masquerading as scholarship…point of view and give it academic legitimacy.”
Dennis Ross has a long governmental and lobbyist history devoted to Israel. He was a Director of the AIPAC founded “Washington Institute for Near East Policy” established by Martin Indyk in 1985 as the Policy Arm for the Israeli Lobby with great influence on Congress and the Executive Branch through its “expert” policy papers, often adopted by Administrations; and an almost total monopoly of “experts” to the media. He currently serves as the Counselor and Ziegler Distinguished Fellow at the Institute.
He is also the First Chairman of the Board of a new Jerusalem based think tank, the Institute for Jewish People Policy Planning, founded and funded by the Jewish Agency. He also serves as a Foreign Policy Analyst for the “fair and balanced” Fox News Channel.
Michael C. Desch, a Professor and Robert M. Gates Chair in Intelligence and National Security Decision-making at the George H. W. Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University reviewed Dennis Ross’s book “The Missing Peace: The Inside Story of the Fight for Middle East Peace” in an article in the American Conservative Magazine titled “The Peace That Failed” , on November 8, 2004. [11]
Professor Desch quotes Ross as acknowledging, “I identified with [Israel’s] people, and my own Jewish identity became more important to me as a result. Intrinsically, I believed that Israel had a right to exist and that the Jewish people needed and deserved a homeland, a place of refuge.” Desch concludes -- -Ross was a committed Zionist.
Desch further writes: “Ross recounts an interesting discussion with President Clinton after the two had a testy exchange with Prime Minister Netanyahu. “President Clinton observed: ‘He thinks he is the superpower and we are here to do whatever he requires.”
He continues: “At Camp David, Clinton became so exasperated with Barak that he exploded: “‘I went to Shepardstown and was told nothing by you for four days. I went to Geneva and felt like a wooden Indian doing your bidding.... I will not let it happen here [at Camp David]. I will simply not do it.’” In the end, Clinton did just that. “As long as Israeli leaders treat U.S. presidents as their servants, and as long as U.S. presidents accept that role, the prospects for peace remain dim. Indeed, by enabling Israel’s leaders to persist in the policy of occupation that fuels Palestinian violence, America’s unthinking support has not made Israel any safer.”
Ross’s placing of total blame for the Camp David failure on Arafat has been discredited by other Americans at the Summit, notably Robert Malley, Assistant to President Clinton and Camp David participant, and National Security Council Member. (Despite his promise to the contrary, Clinton also blamed Arafat for the failure to save Barak and prepare New York’s Jewish support for his long suffering wife’s ambition to be New York’s Senator)
“The US failed to broker a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians in part because it allowed former (Israeli) Prime Minister Ehud Barak to dictate the terms of the negotiations, and often greeted his proposals on final status issues with "unwarranted enthusiasm," Robert Malley, a former senior US negotiator, said…..“If the fundamental equation had to be land for peace, how can it have any meaning and any relevance when, on the one hand, land was being taken away on a daily basis and, on the other hand, the peace was being maligned on a daily basis," he said. He added that there was largely a consensus among former senior US officials that their policy toward settlement expansion had been too lax”
-- Janine Zacharia, “Clinton Official: U.S. Indulged Israel Too Much”, Jerusalem Post, March 11, 2001
Additionally, Clayton E. Swisher in his book “The Truth About Camp David: The Untold Story About the Collapse of the Middle East Process” also discredits Ross’s Pro-Israel narrative. He writes, “…the criticism from all sides of Ross’s poor preparation and doubts about his ability” led to deliberations whether he should go. In fact one White House official is quoted as saying: “There were some who said he should be replaced.” (P. 184)
WITH few exceptions, the major U.S. media deliberately ignored the manufactured controversy regarding the paper “The Israeli Lobby”, perhaps at the request of the Lobby itself which according to the Jewish magazine, The Forward, wishes to lie low lest they further publicize the paper (maybe because it’s true).
Forward: Editorial, “Speak for Yourself” , March 17, 2006
“It's undoubtedly a measure of the Jews' progress in American society that the biggest yearly gathering of Jewish political activists, the AIPAC policy conference, has become the most sought-after Washington platform for politicians looking to launch or advance — or, on occasion, salvage — a career. There was a time when the world's movers and shakers didn't much want to be seen around our kind. Now there's nothing they want more than to curry our favor and bask in our reflected glory”
Unlike our cowardly media, the respected Israeli paper, Ha’aretz had the following articles:
Ha’aretz Editorial, “A Warning From America” , March 22, 2006
“The writers' (Walt & Mearsheimer) conclusion is that America's negative image in the Middle East stems from its overly supportive attitude toward Israel….it would be irresponsible to ignore the article's serious and disturbing message…. The professors' article does not deserve condemnation; rather, it should serve as a warning sign”.
Ha’retz: “So Pro Israel That It Hurts” , Daniel Levy, March 23, 2006
“The new John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt study of "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" should serve as a wake-up call, on both sides of the ocean… their case is a potent one: that identification of American with Israeli interests can be principally explained via the impact of the Lobby in Washington, and in limiting the parameters of public debate Sadly, if predictably, response to the Harvard study has been characterized by a combination of the shrill and the smug. Avoidance of candid discussion might make good sense to the Lobby, but it is unlikely to either advance Israeli interests or the U.S.-Israel relationship…. Israel must not be party to the bullying tactics used to silence policy debate in the U.S. and the McCarthyite policing of academia by set-ups like Daniel Pipes' Campus Watch.”
(Daniel Levy was an advisor in the Prime Minister's Office, a member of the official Israeli negotiating team at the Oslo B and Taba talks and the lead Israeli drafter of the Geneva Initiative.)
Ha’aretz: “One Racist Nation” , by Gideon Levy, March 26, 2006
“Racism has never had so many open supporters. It's the real hit of this election campaign (Israel’s election just ending)….The coming elections have been decided already. A massive majority will cast its vote for the racist arrangement that ignores the Palestinians, as proposed by Kadima, Likud and, to a large extent, Labor”.
“Some get frustrated by always having to address anti-Semitism while working toward a just resolution to the plight of the Palestinians…The fact that AIPAC, the ADL, B'nai Brith, the Conference of Presidents and other Jewish organizations work hard to convey to politicians and others that Jews have a large amount of power cannot be ignored. "almighty lobby"….effects are mostly felt in the stifling of debate on the question of Israel, among the intellectual elites, in Congress and in the mainstream media.”
-- Mitchell Plitnick, Director of Policy and Education, Jewish Voice for Peace, in “Myth and Reality: Jewish Influence on US Middle East” [12]
The Pro-Israeli Lobby, Presidents, Congressmen, Academicians, and the major media who portray Israel and America as sharing common values are doing so for political and financial expediency. In fact the two nations couldn’t be more different in their values.
Contrasts American Beliefs and Values vs. Israeli Beliefs and Values:
A. American Beliefs and Values
1. Belief in Democracy as expressed in the concepts of equality of opportunity and equality before the law for all citizens regardless of ethnic identity or religiousns affiliation
2. Respect for International Norms, Principles, and Laws
3. Commitment to to peaceful resolution of Disputes based on justice and equity.
B. Israeli-Zionism Beliefs and Values: described as anti-ethical
1. Predicated on concept of religious/national exclusivity based on “Jew” and “Non-Jew”, that is institutionalized into all the formal state structures.
2. Concept of Democracy as no more than rule by the majority without any protection of the rights of minorities.
3. Approach to conflict resolution is based on the premise that “right makes right”
4. Complete Disregard for Internationally recognized standards of State behavior.
5. Disregard for the Principles and Resolutions of the United Nations
-- Cheryl A. Rubenberg, Associate Professor of International Relations, Florida International University, “Anti-Zionism: Analytical Reflections”, page 195
Israel is despised worldwide not because of its Jewishness, although it’s a secular state, but because of its occupation and brutality of Palestinians against international laws and hundreds of U.N. Resolutions, its abuse of human rights, its militarism and massacres with impunity knowing the U.S. will protect it from any consequences, its powerful grip upon many governments, but especially in the U.S.. All this, from a small minority of Jews with money, votes, powerful lobbies and media compliance acting against the peaceful wishes of most Israelis, American Jews, Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims, in fact, the rest of the world. No one should begrudge Jewish success in all fields, on the contrary its admirable. What the world rejects is the use of such success to protect Israel from its own inhumanity and immorality against millions of Palestinians scattered in sewer filled camps ignored by the world and now starved by Israel in Gaza. Israel has turned down dozens of peace plans including Truman’s Lausanne Conference in 1949, followed by many others. Egypt’s President Nasser approached Israel in the mid 1950’s for peaceful negotiations to end the conflict, Israel refused. The Arab League unanimously agreed to recognize Israel and establish full diplomatic and trade relations in exchange for Israel’s total withdrawal from occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, Israel, the U.S., and our media dismissed it out of hand. To Israel, any peace plan is poisonous and against its ambitions for Arab lands with callous disregard to Arab life and property.
“There can be no lasting peace without a just settlement of the problem of those Palestinians whom the wars of 1948 and 1967 have made homeless.”
-- William Rogers, Secretary of State, December 9, 1969 (Anti-Zionism: Analytical Reflections, page 213)
There will be no peace in the Middle East or the world unless Israel is forced to abandon its illegal occupation. The only nation that can impose upon Israel such an outcome is America, but shockingly, this super power is putty in the hands of the “Israeli Lobby”.
Unless Americans educate themselves on the history and politics of this conflict, Americans will continue to pay and die for Israel and terrorism will increase thanks to the Jewish only state.
America it’s your choice, if you only knew VERITAS, the truth.
“Have our Jewish sisters and brothers forgotten their humiliation? Have they forgotten the collective punishment, home demolitions, and their own history so soon? Have they turned their backs on their profound and noble religious traditions. Have they forgotten that God cares deeply about the downtrodden? Israel will never get true security and safety through oppressing another people. A true peace can ultimately be built only on justice.”
-- Archbishop Desmund Tutu, “Occupation is Oppression”, April 13, 2002
Notes:
[1]. http://www.nysun.com/article/29648
[2]. http://www.wrmea.com/archives/May_2004/0405067.html
[3]. Ibid
[4]. http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery04102003.html
[5]. http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1209/p16s01-wmgn.html
[6]. http://www.nysun.com/article/29741
[7]. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050711/wiener
[8]. http://www.nysun.com/article/29470
[9]. http://foia.state.gov/documents/kissinger/0000C105.pdf
[10]. http://www.flameout.org/flameout/islam/pipes/dpweblog_octnov04.html
[11]. http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/review.html
[12]. http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/publish/article_100.shtml
Recommended Books:
“What Price Israel?”, by Dr. Alfred L. Lilenthal
“The Lobby: “Jewish Political Power and American Foreign Policy”, by Edward Tivnan
“Jewish Power”, by J. J. Goldberg
“Bad News From Israel”, by Greg Philo and Mike Derry, Glasgow University Media Group “One Nation Under Israel”, by Andrew Hurley
“The Question of Palestine”, by Edward Said
“Fifty Years of Israel”, by Donald Neff
“The Arabs: Myth and Reality” , by Gerald Butt
“Original Sins” , by Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi
“The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949”, by Benny Morris
“The Holocaust Industry”, by Norman G. Finkelstein
“The Invention of Ancient Israel: the Silencing of Palestinian History” , by Keith W. Whitelam
“The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World”, by Avi Shlaim
“The Passionate Attachment: America’s Involvement with Israel, 1947 to Present” , by George W. Ball
“They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel’s Lobby” , by Paul Findley
“It’s the Media, Stupid”, by Robert W. McChesney and John Nichols
“Prophets Outcast: A Century of Dissident Jewish Writing About Zionism and Israel”, by Adam Shatz
“The Politics of Anti-Semitism”, Alexander Cockburn
“Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History”, by Norman G. Finkelstein
“In the Shadow of the Holocaust: The Struggle Between Jews and Zionists in the Aftermath of World War II”, by Yosef Grodzinsky
“Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years”, by Professor Israel Shahak
“Assault on the Liberty”, by James M. Ennes, Jr.
“Nothing Sacred: The Truth About Judaism”, by Douglas Rushkoff
“Anti-Zionism: Analytical Reflections”, Editors: Roselle Tekiner, Norton Mezvinsky
*********************
Noam Chomsky and the Pro-Israel Lobby: Fourteen Erroneous Theses by James Petras
"…Reflexes that ordinarily spring automatically to the defense of open debate and free enquiry shut down – at least among much of America’s political elite – once the subject turns to Israel, and above all the pro-Israel lobby’s role in shaping US foreign policy…Moral blackmail – the fear that any criticism of Israeli policy and US support for it will lead to charges of anti-Semitism – is a powerful disincentive to publish dissenting views. It is also leading to the silencing of policy debate on American university campuses, partly as the result of targeted campaigns against the dissenters…Nothing, moreover, is more damaging to US interests than the inability to have a proper debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict…Bullying Americans into consensus on Israeli policy is bad for Israel and makes it impossible for America to articulate its own national interests…." Financial Times, Editorial, Saturday, April 01, 2006.
Introduction
Noam Chomsky has been called the US leading intellectual by pundits and even some sectors of the mass media. He has a large audience throughout the world especially in academic circles, in large part because of his vocal criticism of US foreign policy and many of the injustices resulting from those policies. Chomsky has nonetheless been reviled by all of the major Jewish and pro-Israel organizations and media for his criticism of Israeli policy toward the Palestinians even as he has defended the existence of the Zionist state of Israel. Despite his respected reputation for documenting, dissecting and exposing the hypocrisy of the US and European regimes and acutely analyzing the intellectual deceptions of imperial apologists, these analytical virtues are totally absent when it comes to discussing the formulation of US foreign policy in the Middle East, particularly the role of his own ethnic group, the Jewish Pro-Israel lobby and their Zionist supporters in the government. This political blindness is not unknown or uncommon. History is replete of intellectual critics of all imperialisms except their own, the abuses of power by others, but not of one’s own kin and kind. Chomsky’s long history denying the power and role of the pro-Israel lobby in decisively shaping US Middle East policy culminated in his recent conjoining with the US Zionist propaganda machine attacking a study critical of the Israeli lobby. I am referring to the essay published by the London Review of Books entitled "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy" by Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Professor Stephan Walt, the purged Academic Dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. (A complete version of the study was published by the Kennedy School of Government in March 2006.)
Chomsky’s speeches and writing on the Lobby emphasizes several dubious propositions.
1) The pro-Israel Lobby is just like any other lobby; it has no special influence or place in US politics.
2) The power of the groups backing the Israel lobby are no more powerful than other influential pressure groups
3) The Lobby’s agenda succeeds because it coincides with the interests of the dominant powers and interests of the US State.
4) The Lobby’s weakness is demonstrated by the fact that Israel is 'merely a tool’ of US empire building to be used when needed and otherwise marginalized.
5) The major forces shaping US Middle East policy are "big oil" and the "military-industrial complex", neither of which is connected to the pro-Israel lobby.
6) The interests of the US generally coincide with the interests of Israel
7) The Iraq War, the threats to Syria and Iran are primarily a product of "oil interests" and the "military-industrial complex" and not the role of the pro-Israel lobby or its collaborators in the Pentagon and other government agencies.
While in general Chomsky has deliberately refrained from specifically discussing the pro-Israel lobby in his speeches, interviews and publications analyzing US policy toward the Middle East, but when he does, he follows the above-mentioned repertory.
The problem of war and peace in the Middle East and the role of the Israel lobby is too serious to be marginalized as an after-thought. Even more important, the increasing censoring of free speech and erosion of our civil liberties, academic freedom by an aggressive lobby, with powerful legislative and White House backers, is a threat to our already limited democracy.
It is incumbent therefore to examine the fourteen erroneous theses of the highly respected Professor Chomsky in order to move ahead and confront the Lobby’s threats to peace abroad and civil liberties at home.
Fourteen Theses
1) Chomsky claims that the Lobby is just another lobby in Washington. Yet he fails to observe that the lobby has secured the biggest Congressional majorities in favor of allocating three times the annual foreign aid designated to all of Africa, Asia and Latin America to Israel (over 100 billion dollars over the past 40 years). The Lobby has 150 full time functionaries working for the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), accompanied by an army of lobbyists from all the major Jewish organizations (Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Committee, American Jewish Congress, etc.) and the nation-wide, regional and local Jewish federations which hew closely to the line of the "majors" and are active in policy and local opinion on Israel and promote and finance legislative candidates on the basis of their adherence to the Lobby’s party line. No other lobby combines the wealth, grass roots networks, media access, legislative muscle and single-minded purpose of the pro-Israel lobby.
2) Chomsky fails to analyze the near unanimous congressional majorities which yearly support all the pro-Israel military, economic, immigration privileges and aid promoted by the Lobby. He fails to examine the list of over 100 successful legislative initiatives publicized yearly by AIPAC even in years of budgetary crisis, disintegrating domestic health services and war induced military losses.
3) Chomsky’s cliché-ridden attribution of war aims to "Big Oil" is totally unsubstantiated. In fact the US-Middle East wars prejudice the oil interests in several strategic senses. The wars generate generalized hostility to oil companies with long-term relations with Arab countries. The wars result in undermining new contracts opening in Arab countries for US oil investments. US oil companies have been much friendlier to peacefully resolving conflicts than Israel and especially its Lobbyists as any reading of the specialized oil industry journals and spokespeople emphasize. Chomsky chooses to totally ignore the pro-war activities and propaganda of the leading Jewish pro-Israel organizations and the absence of pro-war proposals in Big Oil’s media, and their beleaguered attempt to continue linkages with Arab regimes opposed to Israel’s belligerent hegemonic ambitions. Contrary to Chomsky, by going to war in the Middle East, the US sacrifices the vital interests of the oil companies in favor of Israel’s quest for Middle East hegemony at the call and behest of the pro-Israel lobby. In the lobbying contest there is absolutely no contest between the pro-Israel power bloc and the oil companies when it comes to favoring Israeli interests over oil interests, whether the issue is war or oil contracts. Chomsky never examines the comparative strength of the two lobbies regarding US policy toward the Middle East. In general this usually busy researcher devoted to uncovering obscure documentation is particularly lax when it come to uncovering readily available documents, which shred his assertions about Big Oil and the Israel Lobby.
4) Chomsky refuses to analyze the diplomatic disadvantages that accrue to the US in vetoing Security Council resolutions condemning Israel’s systematic violations of human rights. Neither the military-industrial complex nor Big Oil has a stranglehold on US voting behavior in the UN. The pro-Israel lobbies are the only major lobby pressuring for the vetoes against the US’ closest allies, world public opinion and at the cost of whatever role the US could play as a 'mediator’ between the Arabic-Islamic world and Israel.
5) Chomsky fails to discuss the role of the Lobby in electing Congress-people, their funding of pro-Israel candidates and the over fifty-million dollars they spend on the Parties, candidates and propaganda campaigns. The result is a 90% congressional vote on high priority items pushed by the Lobby and affiliated local and regional pro-Israel federations.
6) Nor does he undertake to analyze the cases of candidates defeated by the Lobby, the abject apologies extracted from Congress-people who have dared to question the policies and tactics of the Lobby, and the intimidation effect of its 'exemplary punishments’ on the rest of Congress. The "snowball" effect of punishment and payoffs is one reason for the unprecedented majorities in favor of all of AIPAC’s initiatives. Chomsky’s feeble attempts to equate the AIPAC’s pro-Israel initiatives with broader US policy interests is patently absurd to anyone who studies the alignment of policy groups associated with designing, pressuring, backing and co-sponsoring the AIPAC’s measures: The reach of the Jewish lobby far exceeds its electoral constituency – as the one million dollar slush fund to defeat incumbent Georgia Congresswoman, Cynthia McKinny, demonstrates. That she was subsequently re-elected on the basis of low keying her criticism of Israel reveals the Lobby’s impact even on consequential Democrats.
7) Chomsky ignores the unmatchable power of elite convocation which the Lobby has. The AIPAC annual meeting draws all the major leaders in Congress, key members of the Cabinet, over half of all members of Congress who pledge unconditional support for Israel and even identify Israel’s interests as US interests. No other lobby can secure this degree of attendance of the political elite, this degree of abject servility, for so many years, among both major parties. What is particularly important is the "Jewish electorate" is less than 5% of the total electorate, while practicing Jews number less than 2% of the population of which not all are 'Israel Firsters’. None of the major lobbies like the NRA, AARP, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Chamber of Commerce can convoke such a vast array of political leaders, let alone secure their unconditional support for favorable pro-Israel legislation and Executive orders. No less an authority as the Prime Minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon, boasted of the power of the pro-Israel lobby over US Middle East policy. Chomsky merely asserts that the Pro-Israel lobby is just like any other lobby, without any serious effort to compare their relative influence, power of convocation and bi-partisan support, or effectiveness in securing high priority legislation.
8) In his analysis of the run-up to the US-Iraq War, Chomsky’s otherwise meticulous review of foreign policy documents, analysis of political linkages between policymakers and power centers is totally abandoned in favor of impressionistic commentaries completely devoid of any empirical basis. The principal governmental architects of the war, the intellectual promoters of the war, their publicly enunciated published strategies for the war were all deeply attached to the Israel lobby and worked for the Israeli state. Wolfowitz, number 2 in the Pentagon, Douglas Feith, number 3 in the Pentagon, Richard Perle, head of the Defense Board, Elliot Abrams in charge of Middle East affairs for the National Security Council, and dozens of other key operatives in the government and ideologues in the mass media were life-long fanatical activists in favor of Israel, some of whom had lost security clearances in previous administrations for handing over documents to the Israeli government. Chomsky ignores the key strategy documents written by Perle, Feith and other ZionCons in 1996 demanding bellicose action against Iraq, Iran and Syria, which they subsequently implemented when they took power with Bush’s election. Chomsky totally ignores the disinformation office set up in the Pentagon by ultra Zionist Douglas Feith – the so-called 'Office of Special Plans’ – run by fellow ZionCon Abram Shumsky - to channel bogus "data" to the White House – bypassing and discrediting CIA and military intelligence which contradicted their disinformation. Non-Zionist specialist in the Pentagon’s Middle East office, Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, described in great detail the easy and constant flow of Mossad and Israeli military officers in and out of Feith’s office while critical US experts were virtually barred. None of these key policymakers promoting the war had any direct connection to the military-industrial complex or Big Oil, but all were deeply and actively tied to the State of Israel and backed by the Lobby. Astonishingly Chomsky, famous for his criticism of intellectuals enamored with imperial power and uncritical academics, pursues a similar path when it concerns pro-Israel intellectuals in power and their Zionist academic colleagues. The problem is not only the "lobby" pressuring from outside, but their counterparts within the State.
9) Chomsky frequently derides the half-hearted criticism by liberals of US foreign policy, yet he nowhere raises a single peep about the absolute silence of Jewish progressives about the major role of the Lobby in promoting the invasion of Iraq. At no point does he engage in debate or criticism of the scores of Israel First academic supporters of war with Iraq, Iran or Syria. Instead his criticism of the war revolves around the role of Party leaders, the Bush Administration etc… without any attempt to understand the organized basis and ideological mentors of the militarists.
10) Chomsky fails to analyze the impact of the concerted and uninterrupted campaign organized by all major US pro-Israel lobbies and personalities to silence criticism of Israel and the Lobby’s support for the war. Chomsky’s refusal to criticize the Lobby’s abuse of anti-Semitism to destroy our civil liberties, hound academics out of the universities and other positions for criticizing Israel and the Lobby is most evident in the recent smear campaign of Professors Walt and Mearsheimer. While the Lobby successfully pressured Harvard to disclaim Professor Walt and eventually force his resignation from the Deanship at the Kennedy School at Harvard, Chomsky joined the Lobby in condemning their extensive critical scholarship and meticulous analysis. At no point does Chomsky deal with the central facts of their analysis about the Lobby’s contemporary power over US Middle East policy. The irony is Chomsky himself an occasional victim of academic Zionist hatchet jobs; this time he is on the givers’ end.
11) Chomsky fails to assess the power of the Lobby in comparison with other institutional forces. For example top US Generals have frequently complained that Israeli armed forces receive new high tech military hardware before it has become operational in the US. Thanks to the Lobby, their complaints are rarely heeded. US defense industries (some of whom have joint production contracts with Israeli military industries) have bitterly complained of Israel’s unfair competition, violation of trade agreements and the illegal sale of high tech weaponry to China. Under threat of losing all their lucrative ties with the Pentagon, Israel cancelled sales to China, while the Lobby looked on… During the run-up to the US invasion of Iraq, many active and retired military officials and CIA analysts opposed the War, questioned the assumptions and projections of the pro-Israel ideologues in the Pentagon like Wolfwitz, Feith, Perle and in the National Security Council, the State Department and the Vice President’s office (Irving 'ZionCon’ Libby). They were over-ruled, their advice dismissed by the ZionCons and belittled by their ideological backers writing in the major print media. The position of the ZionCons in the government successfully overcame their institutional critics in large part because their opinion and policies toward the war were uncritically accepted by the mass media and particularly by the New York Times whose primary war propagandist, Judith Miller, has close links with the Lobby. These are well known historical linkages and debates which a close reader of the mass media like Chomsky was aware of , but deliberately chose to omit and deny, substituting more 'selective’ criticism of the Iraq war based on the exclusion of vital facts.
12) In what passes for Chomsky’s "refutation" of the power of the Lobby is a superficial historical review of US-Israel relations citing the occasional conflict of interests in which, even more occasionally, the pro-Israel lobby failed to get its way. Chomsky’s historical arguments resemble a lawyer’s brief more than a comprehensive review of the power of the Lobby. For example, while in 1956 the US objected to the joint French-British-Israeli attack on Egypt, over the next 50 years the US financed and supplied the Israeli war machine to the tune of $70 billion dollars, thanks largely to the pressure of the Lobby. In 1967, the Israeli air force bombed the US intelligence gathering ship, the USS Liberty, in international waters and strafed to US Naval personnel killing or wounding over 200 sailors and officers. The Johnson Administration, in a historically unprecedented move, refused to retaliate and silenced the survivors of the unprovoked attack with threats of 'court-martial’. No subsequent administration has ever raised the issue, let alone conducted an official Congressional investigation, even as they escalated aid to Israel and prepared to use nuclear weapons to defend Israel when it seem to be losing the Yom Kippur War in 1973. The US defense of Israel led to the very costly Arab oil boycott, which brought on a massive increase in the price of oil and the animosity of former Arab allies threatening global monetary stability. In other words, in this as in many other cases, the pro-Israel lobby was more influential than the US armed forces in shaping US response to an Israeli act of aggression against American service men operating in international waters. In recent years, the power of the Lobby has seriously inhibited the FBI’s prosecution of the scores of Israeli spies who entered the US in 2001. The most that was done was their quiet deportation. The recent arrest of two AIPAC officials for handing confidential government documents over to Israeli embassy officials has led the pro-Israel lobby to mobilize a massive media campaign in their defense, converting an act of espionage against the US into an 'exercise of free speech’. Editorials and op-ed articles in favor of dismissal of the charges have appeared in most of the leading newspapers in what must be the most unprecedented campaign in favor of agents of a foreign government in US history. The power of the propaganda reach of the Lobby far exceeds any countervailing power, even though the case against the AIPAC officials is very strong, including the testimony of the key Pentagon official convicted of handing them the documents.
13) Chomsky, a highly reputable critic of the bias of the mass media, attributes corporate ties to their anti-workers news reports. However when it comes to the overwhelming pro-Israel bias he has never analyzed the influence of the Israel lobby, the link between the pro-Israel media elite and the pro-Israel bias. Merely a blind spot or a case of ideologically driven intellectual amnesia…?
14) Chomsky cites Israel’s importance for US imperial strategy in weakening Arab nationalism, its role in providing military aid and military advisers to totalitarian terrorist regimes (Guatemala, Argentina, Colombia, Chile, El Salvador, and so on) when the US Congress imposes restrictions to direct US involvement. There is little doubt that Israel serves US imperial purposes, especially in situations where bloody politics are involved. But Israel did so because it benefited from doing so – it increased military revenues, gained backers favoring Israel’s colonial policies, provided markets for Israeli arms dealers etc. However, a more comprehensive analysis of US interests demonstrates that the costs of supporting Israel far exceed the occasional benefit, whether we consider advantages to US imperial goals or even more so from the vantage point of a democratic foreign policy. With regard to the costly and destructive wars against Iraq, following Israel’s lead and its lobbies, the pro-Israel policy has severely undermined US military capacity to defend the empire, has led to a loss of prestige and discredited US claims to be a champion of freedom and democracy. From the viewpoint of democratic foreign policy it has strengthened the militarist wing of the government and undermined democratic freedoms at home. Israel benefits, of course, because the war destroyed a major secular adversary and allowed it to tighten its stranglehold on the Occupied Territories.
The unconditional commitment to the Israeli colonial state has eroded US relations with the richest and most populous states in the Arab and Islamic world. In market terms the difference is between hundreds of billions of dollars in sales versus defending a receiver of massive US aid handouts. The economic losses far outweigh any small-scale questionable military benefits. The Arab states are net buyers of US military hardware. The Israeli arms industry is a stiff competitor.
US oil and gas companies are net losers in terms of investments, profits and markets because of the US ties to Israel which, because of its small market, has little to offer in each of the above categories.
Finally Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and the Lobby’s effective campaign to secure US vetoes against international resolutions puts the US on the side of widespread, legalized torture, legalized extrajudicial executions and illegal massive population displacement. The end result is the weakening of international law and increased volatility in an area of great strategic importance. Chomsky takes no account of the geo-strategic and energy costs, the losses in our domestic freedoms resulting directly from the Middle East wars for Israel, and even less of the rise of a virulent form of Zionist Neo-McCarthyism spreading throughout our academic, artistic and other public and private institutions. If anything demonstrates the Zionists’ growing power and authoritarian reach, the brutal and successful campaign against Professors Mearsheimer and Walt confirm it, in spades.
Conclusion
In normal times one would give little attention to academic polemics unless they have important political consequences. In this case, however, Noam Chomsky is an icon for the US anti-war movements and what stands for intellectual dissent. That he has chosen to absolve the pro-Israel lobby and its affiliated groups and media auxiliaries is an important political event, especially when questions of war and peace hang in the balance, when the majority of Americans oppose the war. Giving a 'free ride’ to the principle authors, architects and lobbyists in favor of the war is a positive obstacle to achieving clarity about who we are fighting and why. To ignore the pro-Israel lobby is to allow it a free hand in pushing for the invasion of Iran and Syria. Worse, to distract from their responsibility by pointing to bogus enemies is to weaken our understanding not only of the war, but also of the enemies of freedom in this country. Most of all, it allows a foreign government a privileged position in dictating our Middle East policy, while proposing police state methods and legislation to inhibit debate and dissent. Let me conclude by saying that the peace and justice movements, at home and abroad, are bigger than any individual or intellectual – no matter what their past credentials.
Yesterday the major Zionist organizations told us who we may or may not criticize in the Middle East, today they tell us who we may criticize in the United States, tomorrow they will tell us to bend our heads and submit to their lies and deceptions in order to engage in new wars of conquest at the service of a morally repugnant colonial regime.
*********************
The Israeli Lobby proves accurate by “IL study”! by Hassan Al-Haifi
John J. Mearsheimer (born December 1947) is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago
Stephen M. Walt is Academic Dean and Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International Affairs at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.
The above two gentlemen of distinction have undoubtedly proved their loyalty to their country and more importantly have proved their professional courage and diligence in presenting a study that should enlighten the American people as to the misguided approach their government’s foreign policy has been pursuing. These two distinguished academicians of the United States have dared to put all the weight and credibility of their academic credentials on an important topic that should be of interest to all Americans and non-Americans, who were waiting for the day when
America will awaken to the smear that this Lobby has put on the posture and image of the United States throughout the world. Their work, “the Israel Lobby” should have been greeted with admiration and respect for its candidacy, unrelenting and objective discussion of the misguiding influence of Israeli Lobby in the United States. One is quite certain that these two honorable men were doing this in the best interests of the United States and with the utmost adherence to professional ethics and adherence to the upholding of moral values on which presumably the United States was founded upon.
Yet, after absorbing the shocking revelations of their very important and well referenced study, the Israel Lobby began its libel and slander campaign against these two men, without hardly showing any taste or respect for the stature that these men deserve. In fact all that the study revealed with respect to intimidation, and rejection of any opposing opinion were unleashed against these two men of distinction and it is not surprising that the Israeli Lobby was dealt a striking blow by the study. This is evidenced by the early silence so as not to give the study early disseminating momentum, especially as the Lobby was caught off guard by its revealing facts about the danger and evil that has befallen the United States thanks to the strength and influence which this machine has been accorded in the United States political apparatus. Of course there was more libel, arm twisting and plain blackmail used to confront this study rather than academic credible responses worth noting. These ranged from forcing both the University of Chicago and Harvard University to remove their logos from the study reports to calling the study “full of errors” and childish, not to mention “typically anti-Semitic”, conspiracy theory oriented and all the other standing libels that the Lobby has ready for anyone who dares challenge their power and influence.
This observer would like to point out two aspects of the misdeeds of this Lobby. In a reprint of most of this observer’s article on the Anniversary of Rachel Corrie’s murder by a Zionist bulldozer three years ago, this is what the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto wrote on Tuesday, March 21, 2006:
She “gave her life to a tractor”? Actually, it was a bulldozer, and she was accidentally run over when she stood in front of it in an effort to stop Israel from destroying weapons-smuggling tunnels. That would hardly seem to qualify her for martyrdom, though clearly she’s an inspiration to deranged anti-Semites everywhere. (I.e. Rachel Corrie is now a terrorist!)
Lies, manipulation of the truth and a horrendous addiction to smear people. That is the underlying weapon of the Israel Lobby (the WSJ was considered part and parcel of this Lobby in the Harvard and Chicago University study – although the latter later cowed down to pressure from the Lobby to get their logos out of the study report). There are reports that they are demanding the resignation of Walt from the Kennedy School, but these reports are unconfirmed).
Everyone knows that Rachel was protecting some handicapped Palestinians, whose house was being demolished by an Israeli Bulldozer and people were shouting to the driver to stop before mercilessly crushing her (This is from the British Independent’s Robert Fisk: “… (Rachel) stood in front of an Israeli bulldozer in an attempt to prevent the driver from destroying a Palestinian home. The bulldozer drove over her and then reversed and crushed her a second time). But look at the nerve of the WSJ editor in twisting the facts and smearing Rachel at the same time as just one of those “anti-Semites”. To the WSJ, one would just like to say that this observer is more Semite than anyone their editor means by this worthless slander. Moreover, Rachel is more of an inspiration then any of the devious icons that make up the Israeli Lobby including Tanaro or any of the other mouthpieces of the Israeli Lobby. We have a lot more articles going along this direction (as well as blogs) but we will suffice with this for now.
*****