The Two Narratives About the Israel Lobby: Will They Ever Meet?
Oh, those evangelical Christian Democrats—I guess Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Schumer raise tons of money at private parties in Dallas and Boise!
I'm of course an advocate for the other narrative: that American Jewish support for Israel is a major factor in our foreign policy in that region, and that this support needs to be critically examined (especially by progressives who are appalled by Iraq and trying to undo the damage).
And I'd counter the Times' dismissal of Jewish influence as a canard that goes back to the 40s with the work of a former Timesman, Peter Grose. A gentile, a longtime foreign correspondent for the Times, later associated with the Council on Foreign Relations, Grose in 1983 published a book called Israel in the Mind of America (Knopf) that dissected the political support in the U.S. for the Jewish state, and described the birth of the lobby, which he terms the "Jewish lobby," in the mid-1940s.
Grose completely contradicts the Times' claim of last week. He shows that in 1945-1947, when the Democratic administrations of the White House were taking a "go-slow" policy with respect to a Jewish state in Palestine out of concern for the effects in the Arab world, and when some moderate Zionists were going along with the presidents, militant Jews around the country organized to fast-track the idea.
One part of that movement was grassroots activism, spearheaded by the Zionist Emergency Council, led by Abba Hillel Silver. "Local emergency committees were to be formed wherever Jews lived, but most particularly in the hometowns—no matter how small—of influential members of Congress," Grose writes. "The instructions from headquarters [were to]... get someone respectable to pull him aside and brief him privately on the Palestine situation—[the committee said,] 'Your local Congressman or Senator may be the man who will make a decisive speech on this subject on the floor of Congress—THIS POSSIBILITY MUST NOT BE OVERLOOKED.'" The Zionist Emergency Council also secretly gave money to "Protestant notables" so that they would issue statements calling for a Jewish state, Grose says. The Zionist Emergency Council said, "Strong Christian pressure for a Jewish Commonwealth [state] is needed to spur Federal action on behalf of a Jewish Palestine." These dummy Christian organizations sometimes issued statements "signed" by clergymen who hadn't been shown them ahead of time!
The other part of the lobby was the wielding of influence in D.C. by a group organized by Israel M. Sieff, a British magnate living in Washington—in a tradition going back 30 years to Justice Brandeis's idea of secret gatherings, or parushim, of Jews who cared deeply about Palestine during the time of the Balfour Declaration.
Writes Grose:
"The little nucleus possessed the entrée and the clout to carry the message of Jewish Palestine into the highest policymaking circles—through casual suggestion, indirection, chance remarks among well-placed colleagues in the corridors of power and the salons of social Washington...a sophisticated version of Brandeis' Parushim; it would grow into the Zionists' back channel through official Washington in the last years of the Roosevelt administration and the crucial opening years of Harry S Truman's presidency. Its existence was never openly acknowledged—just friends having dinner together—yet the members and their diverse contacts well knew who their colleagues were...[A]mong the anti-Zionists of the State Department this amorphous little club aroused all the old fears of an international Zionist conspiracy. Even after Sieff's return to England after the war, the informal group he founded repeatedly demonstrated its influence."
Grose is highly favorable to Israel; yet he is able to speak of the importance of Jewish influence. It's too bad that the Times couldn't have at least acknowledged some of this Timesman's work in its anatomizing last week.
Yes, the context for the birth of the Israel lobby is: Jews are a persecuted minority and the Holocaust wiped out European Jewry; many American Jews saw a Jewish homeland as a vital need, and they used whatever power they had to get a state—thereby rolling my crowd, the cultural Zionists and other Jewish anti-staters, including the Times itself. Alas, similar concerns, about persecution and anti-Semitism and Boratism in the U.S., are the reason that the Times feels so uncomfortable today, and cannot look head-on at an issue that is so central to repairing our approach to the Middle East.
As an optimist, I'd argue that my side is managing to mainstream the issue. After all, other outlets are feeling less anxiety than the Times does. Simon & Schuster ran a full-page ad for Jimmy Carter's book last week, and in that book the former President speaks of the power of the lobby. The men who blew the issue open last March, Walt and Mearsheimer, were on the cover of Foreign Policy in the summer; and the Naval War College invited the profs to speak; not long after West Point toasted Noam Chomsky. In September, Mearsheimer was the main event at a debate of the Israel lobby at Cooper Union. It was SRO, with scores turned away in the streets of New York. When Brian Lamb managed to interview Walt and Mearsheimer on C-Span, he said that he had been trying to get the authors on "for months."
Still, CSpan is the periphery, and Jimmy Carter is getting flayed by the Democratic leadership. So we still have two narratives; and this is a danger sign: it reflects a deep fissure in our public culture. (Remember the OJ verdict?).
Earlier this year I had dinner at a restaurant in Damascus with a Muslim woman from Tunisia. I asked her about women's rights in Syria. We had talked about everything else openly; now she raised her hand and said, "We should have this conversation in private." Yes, the Arab world is impaled on modernity; in many quarters, you cannot discuss the issues of free speech or women's rights without looking over your shoulder. And in the clash of cultures, we also have our black holes.
Phil Weiss is a dogmatic dipshit, a failed journalist. He can't separate fact from his warped view of the Israel.
Why does he write for The Observer?
Dear Friends,
Excuse Phil for this current release of verbal diarrhea. If he knew what he was talking about, he wouldn't have this "pseudo-job" here at The Observer. He finds any excuse to bash Israel and the Jewsih people, it's kind of his niche here at The Observer. It's been a while since The Observer has given him an actual writing assignment, but he'll have a 'real' piece in the paper soon, since they like his hybrid journalism-fiction..
It's been a tough time for him lately. After a few decent journalism assignments over a decade ago, and two disastrous books, one which was painfully reviewed in the New York Times:
"The writing is bizarre and strange, disjointed, rambling, nonsensical much of the time. ... Some cognitive problem? We are told this was written by a journalist,an editor no less, yet over and over as I read I kept asking myself: what? when? who? huh? where? huh?"
... padded with repetitions, nonevents, paragraphs full of sawdust, marginal details, purplish flights of fancy...." and in a few other terribly embarrassing reviews which he hates to even think about, his writing career tanked.
Check out the review, it helps explain why he has this job at the Observer now:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=980CE4DE1239F932A15755C0A9629C8B63
Then, he hit a major identity/midlife/professional crisis.
Since he didn't want to blame himself for my lame situation he decided to blame himself and his culture. This sort of assuaged any responsibility for the mediocrity that his personal and professional life had fallen to.
The result is this provocative, edgy blog. He's stuck to my "rambling, nonsensical" style and gets things wrong a lot of the time, but sticks to my theme which digs at his family and culture, because he blame them for his lame personal/professional life.
He has created a new journalistic method called "code". When something doesn't fit his self-hating ideology, he interprets the "code" that the person is speaking to fit what he wants them to say. It's kind of like making things up, but more in keeping with my "strange, disjointed, rambling, nonsensical" style. Neat, huh?
Hopefully, when this is all over the Observer will be thoroughly embarrassed, but at least they'll get some credit for having gotten rid of him. Then, he can blame them for everything, too.
He's really happy that a lot of people post comments. It makes him feel like his career is resuscitating a little bit.
Thanks and Lifejuice to all of you,
Phill Weissman
Phil must have drank too much LIFEJUICE in Tonga.
Some Rebuttals to Mearsheimer & Walt's "Israel Lobby"
The manifesto attacking the "Israel Lobby" and its alleged stranglehold on US policy in the Middle East by two prominent "realist" academics, John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, appeared in mid-March in two versions: The full 83-page version (with footnotes) was printed as a Working Paper at Harvard entitled "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy," and a condensed version (without footnotes) appeared in the London Review of Books (vol. 28, #6 - 23 March 2006) as "The Israel Lobby."
A number of critical responses have already appeared, many of which are internet-accessible. I referred to some of them in a few of my own previous posts: Mearsheimer & Walt on the Zionist Conspiracy... with a response by Herf & Markovits, Why Mearsheimer & Walt are wrong (continued), and Chomsky and Massad on Mearsheimer & Walt. It was suggested to me that it might be useful to collect a lot of the most serious and systematic critiques of Mearsheimer & Walt's argument in one place, so I have tried to do that below.
This is a preliminary list--not least because I expect that further critiques of M&W's argument will be appearing. Among the relatively brief responses, I think the letter to the LRB by Herf & Markovits remains the most substantial single critique. (I would also highlight the Forward editorial, despite the fact that it has a few slips and errors of its own, and the piece by Lee Smith, which is both cogent and hilarious--see here ). Any comprehensive, point-by-point refutation would have to be a long piece, given how many of M&W's assertions are either tendentious, misleading, logically questionable, or simply incorrect. So far, the only full-scale refutation I know of is the one by Alan Dershowitz that appeared on April 5, but I suspect that others are in the works. When they appear, they can be included in this list.
If anyone knows of other significant pieces that should also be included here, suggestions are welcome.
Yours for reality-based discourse,
Jeff Weintraub
P.S. Richard Kuper reminded me of a piece that appeared several months before Mearsheimer & Walt's paper, but which--in effect--strongly criticizes some key elements of their argument (since Mearsheimer & Walt are mostly just recycling earlier claims made by others). So while this piece does not precisely fit into the list below, it is nevertheless relevant and deserves to be mentioned here:
Steven Zunes, "The US Invasion of Iraq: Not the Fault of Israel and Its Supporters " Foreign Policy in Focus - January 4, 2006
================
Jeffrey Herf & Andrei Markovits, Letter to the London Review of Books | LRB (Vol. 28, #7) dated April 6, 2006 [also here ]
Martin Kramer, "Stephen Walt's World " | Sandstorm - March 17, 2006
Martin Kramer, "Israel and the Iraq War " | Sandstorm - April 12, 2006
Lee Smith, "A Place Called Saudi Arabia " | Michael J. Totten's Middle East Journal - March 20, 2006
Richard Baehr & Ed Lasky, "Stephen Walt's War with Israel " | American Thinker - March 20, 2006
Robert Fine, "The Lobby: Mearsheimer and Walt's Conspiracy Theory " | Engage - March 21, 2006
David Hirsh, "The Blame Game " | Guardian "Comment is Free" blog - March 21, 2006
Rick Richman, "Walt, Mearsheimer, and Academic Malpractice " | Jewish Current Issues - March 22, 2006
Shalom Lappin, "More on Mearsheimer and Walt " | Normblog - March 22, 2006
Ruth R. Wisse, "Harvard attack on 'Israel lobby' is actually a targeting of American public " | Jewish World Review - March 23, 2006
Forward Editorial, "In Dark Times, Blame the Jews " | Forward - March 24, 2006
ADL Analysis, "Mearsheimer and Walt's Anti-Israel Screed: A Relentless Assault in Scholarly Guise " | Anti-Defamation League - March 24, 2006
Adam Shatz, "Dialogue of the Deaf " | Guardian "Comment is Free" blog - March 24, 2006
[Shatz would clearly like to be able to praise M&W's paper. He goes out of his way to compliment their "welcome" contributions and dismiss their critics, and he devotes much of this piece to his own attacks on Israel and the "Israel Lobby"; but in the end he is forced to conclude that M&W's argument is overstated, unconvincing, and misleading. "[T]hey seem so in awe of the lobby's power that they have abandoned their realism for the fantasy that Washington is Israeli-occupied territory." --JW]
Ami Isseroff, "The Israel Lobby Revisited " | Zionism & Israel Web Log - March 26, 2006
Christopher Hitchens, "Overstating Jewish Power " | Slate.com - March 27, 2006
Noam Chomsky, "The Israel Lobby " | ZNet - March 28, 2006
Joseph Massad, "Blaming the Lobby " | Al Ahram Weekly On-line (#787) March 23-29, 2006
Max Boot, "Policy analysis -- paranoid style " | Los Angeles Times - March 29, 2006
Erik Schechter, "The Lobby Made Me Do It " | Worldpress.org - March 29, 2006
Brendan Simms, "'The Israel Lobby': Why John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt are Wrong about United States Middle East Policy and Its Motivations - Brendan Simms Offers a 'Realist' Response to their LRB Article " | The Social Affairs Unit - March 29, 2006
Richard L. Cravatts, "The Paranoid View of History Infects Harvard " | History News Network - April 3, 2006
David Aaronovitch, "Terrorism, the Iraq war--now we can blame one mysterious, powerful group " | Times Online - April 4, 2006
Eliot A. Cohen, "Yes, It's Anti-Semitic " | Washington Post - April 5, 2006
Alan Dershowitz, "Debunking the Newest--and Oldest--Jewish Conspiracy: A Reply to the Mearsheimer-Walt 'Working Paper '" | Harvard Faculty Responses to KSG Working Papers - April 5, 2006
Alan Dershowitz, Letter to the London Review of Books | LRB (Vol. 28, #8) dated April 20, 2006
Jacob T. Levy, "Thoughts on 'The Israel Lobby' " | jacobtlevy.blogspot.com - April 6, 2006
Dov Waxman, "'The Israel Lobby"--Finally a Balanced Review " | The Globalist - April 6, 2006
Dov Waxman, "The Israel Lobby--Preserving an All-Around Perspective " | The Globalist - April 7, 2006
James Klurfeld, "'Israel lobby' didn't con Bush into invading Iraq " | Newsday - April 7, 2006
Ned Lazarus, "The Irony of Great Power Politics " | Ha'aretz - April 11, 2006
Jeremy Schreiber, Letter to the London Review of Books | LRB (Vol. 28, #8) dated April 20, 2006
John Gretton, Letter to the London Review of Books | LRB (Vol. 28, #8) dated April 20, 2006
Michael Grenfell, Letter to the London Review of Books | LRB (Vol. 28, #8) dated April 20, 2006
Michelle Goldberg, "Is the 'Israel Lobby" distorting America's Mideast policies? " | Salon.com - April 18, 2006
Harvard attack on ?Israel lobby? is actually a targeting of American public
By Ruth R. Wisse
A Cambridge luminary fires back
In Boston in the early 1980s, I was asked by an Irish cab driver what language I had been speaking with a fellow passenger we had just dropped off. When I told him, Hebrew, the language of Israel, the man exclaimed: "Israel! That's America's fighting front line! Israel fights our battles better than we could fight them ourselves."
Now Professors Stephen Walt of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago would have us believe that the Boston cabbie was a dupe of the "unmatched power of the Israel Lobby." Their essay in the latest London Review of Books ? based on a longer working paper on the Kennedy Center Web site ? contends that the U.S. government and most of its citizens are fatally in thrall to a "coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to steer U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction." Though not all members of said "coalition" are Jews, and though not all Jews are members, the major schemers are such key organizations as the America-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, joined by neoconservatives, think tanks, and a large network of accomplices including (they will learn to their surprise) The Wall Street Journal and the New York Times.
The thesis of Messrs. Walt and Mearsheimer is remarkably broad and singleminded: A loose association of special-interest groups has persuaded the country to sacrifice its interests to a foreign power, thereby jeopardizing "not only U.S. security but that of much of the rest of the world." Israel, it is claimed, hurts every facet of American life: U.S. emergency aid to Israel during the War of 1973 triggered a damaging OPEC oil embargo. Israel is a liability in the war on terror: It goaded the U.S. into the war in Iraq, betrays America through espionage, and destroys American democracy by quashing all criticism. Recently the Israel Lobby ? a term the authors render with a sinister capital "L" ? has begun to intimidate the universities by trying to create a field of Israel Studies and monitoring anti-Israel bias.
Were it not for the Lobby, the U.S. would have nothing to fear in the world, not even a nuclear threat from Iran: "If Washington could live with a nuclear Soviet Union, a nuclear China or even a nuclear North Korea, it can live with a nuclear Iran. And that is why the Lobby must keep up constant pressure on politicians to confront Tehran." Not Iran but the Lobby is the true threat to America's security by trying to compel the U.S. to oppose Iran against its interests. Most dangerously, Jews control the man at the top: In the spring of 2002 "[Ariel] Sharon and the Lobby took on the president of the United States and triumphed." Given the creative scope of these charges, one is surprised to find no hint of Israel's role in the spread of avian flu.
Organized as a prosecutorial indictment rather than an inquiry, the essay does not tell us why the "Israel Lobby" should have formed in the first place. The 21 countries of the Arab League with ties to 1.2 billion Muslims world-wide are nowhere present as active political agents. There is no mention of the Arab rejection of the United Nations's partition of Palestine in 1948; no 58-year Arab League boycott of Israel and companies trading with Israel; no Arab attacks of 1948, 1967 and 1973; no Arab-Soviet resolution at the U.N. defining Zionism as racism; no monetary and strategic support for Arab terrorism against Jews and Israel; and no Hamas dedication to destroying the Jewish state. The authors do not ask why Arab aggression and Muslim "rage against Israel" should have morphed into a war against the U.S. and the West. Israel's existence elicits Arab and Muslim hostility, hence in their view Israel is to blame for Arab and Muslim carnage.
Judging from the initial reaction to their article (one of my students called it "wacko quacko"), the two professors may be subjected to more ridicule than rejoinder. Several Web sites are in the process of listing all their bloopers, distortions and omissions. Their tone resembles nothing so much as Wilhelm Marr's 1879 pamphlet, "The Victory of Judaism over Germandom," which declared of the Jews that "There is no stopping them . . . German culture has proved itself ineffective and powerless against this foreign power. This is a fact; a brute inexorable fact." A parallel edition of these two texts might highlight some American refinements on the European model, such as the anti-Semitic lie that "Israeli citizenship is based on the principle of blood kinship." In fact, unlike neighboring Arab countries, Israeli citizenship is not conditional on religion or race.
Yet it would be a mistake to treat this article on the "Israel Lobby" as an attack on Israel alone, or on its Jewish defenders, or on the organizations and individuals it singles out for condemnation. Its true target is the American public, which now supports Israel with higher levels of confidence than ever before. When the authors imply that the bipartisan support of Israel in Congress is a result of Jewish influence, they function as classic conspiracy theorists who attribute decisions to nefarious alliances rather than to the choices of a democratic electorate. Their contempt for fellow citizens dictates their claims of a gullible and stupid America. Their insistence that American support for Israel is bought and paid for by the Lobby heaps scorn on American judgment and values.
No wonder David Duke, white supremacist and former leader of the Ku Klux Klan, claimed that this article "validated every major point I have been making since even before the [Iraq] war started." But he and Walt-Mearsheimer have it backwards: Americans don't support Israel because of the strength of any lobby; Israel earns American support the hard way, for the very reasons the Boston cabbie cited several decades ago.
Ruth R. Wisse is the Martin Peretz Professor of Yiddish Literature and professor of comparative literature at Harvard.
Since you guys don't give up, even posting Ruth Wisse's fantasies (Irish cabbie supporting Israel! Yeah right, we never heard how the Irish view Israel after their long history of British occupation, but never mind...), here are some facts which will embarrass you but hey, copy-pasting is easy!
***************************
Bush's Shift on Israel Was Swift
Country's Friends And Foes Credited
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, June 21, 2003; Page A01
The day after President Bush delivered a rare public criticism of Israel last week, he sat down to dinner at the White House with 100 Jewish leaders and did some damage control.
The dinner on June 11, officially marking a new exhibit at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, became an unofficial chance for Bush to reassure the attendees, many of them political donors, that he remained pro-Israel and that his complaints about an Israeli attack on a Palestinian militant were an aberration.
"He and others at the White House recognized that their reaction could be counterproductive," said Malcolm Hoenlein, one of the Jewish leaders who talked privately with Bush that night. "People were taken a little aback by the comments and, from what everyone could tell, the White House was well aware of it."
Indeed, by June 15, Bush was putting sole responsibility for Middle East violence on the Palestinian terrorist group Islamic Resistance Movement, or Hamas, leaving Israel blameless and asking the world to "deal harshly" with Hamas.
The shift in emphasis came about because of a variety of factors, according to diplomats, administration officials and others involved. The day after Bush's criticism of Israel, a Hamas-orchestrated bus bombing in Jerusalem that killed 17 checked the president's first, visceral reaction to Israel's attack on a Hamas leader. A dossier presented by Israeli intelligence operatives to U.S. officials made a case that the target was legitimate -- while Israeli officials reached a tacit understanding with Bush aides about limiting future assassination attempts.
And, not least, Bush faced a wave of protest from Israel's defenders on Capitol Hill and K Street -- including many of those at the dinner on the 11th. According to Republican sources, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (Tex.), who declared that "America must stand by Israel as it fights its own war on terror," had a private meeting with Bush aides and threatened to promote a congressional resolution in support of Israel's actions if Bush persisted in criticizing Israel.
The brief episode illustrates the pressure Bush will be under as he seeks to implement his "road map" to Middle East peace, kicked off earlier this month with a summit meeting in Jordan between the Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas. The reaction to Bush's rebuke of Israel -- really just a mild expression that he was "troubled" by the attack -- brought Bush grief from his conservative supporters, and his dropping of the criticism served to confirm Arab fears that he would not pressure Israel.
"Any president that overuses our relationship with Israel to put their feet to the fire will not be able to do it when the key time comes," said Edward S. Walker, a former ambassador to Israel and now president of the Middle East Institute. "It's something that has to be preserved for the very important decisions, and last week was not one of them."
On Tuesday, June 10, Bush reacted angrily to a pair of Israeli attacks. "I am troubled by the recent Israeli helicopter gunship attacks," Bush said, echoing slightly stronger remarks by his aides. "I also don't believe the attacks help the Israeli security," he added, suggesting that Israel had not been exercising "responsible leadership."
In Jerusalem, Israeli officials felt the administration's anger in phone calls shortly after the first attack. Israeli officials started to assemble a dossier about Hamas leader Abdul Aziz Rantisi justifying the attack, but this was not made available before Bush spoke. "We could have handled it better," said one Israeli official, calling the response to U.S. inquiries "haphazard."
Eventually, Israel's Shin Bet domestic security agency turned over information to the CIA in a series of briefings. Among numerous Israeli officials who flew to Washington were Sharon's chief of staff, Dov Weisglass, Shin Bet Director Avi Dichter and former prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who met with Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice (who is expected to make a Middle East trip later this month).
Part of Bush's pique when he criticized Israel came from his assumption that Sharon had promised Israel would limit assassinations to militants who were "ticking time bombs" -- preparing to attack Israelis. Weisglass, according to an Israeli official, delivered the message to Rice and others that the target, Rantisi, was such a threat.
After numerous discussions, U.S. and Israeli officials agreed on what would be tolerated in the future. "There's a better understanding with the Israelis of what is and is not a ticking time bomb," a senior Bush aide said.
While those secret discussions were occurring, Bush faced a barrage of dissent from Israel's defenders, Republicans and Democrats, on Capitol Hill. Jewish groups normally friendly to the White House objected.
Then, on June 11, the suicide bombing in Jerusalem pushed aside any thought within the administration of criticizing Israel. Bush spoke again in public, this time asking the world to cut off funds to "organizations such as Hamas" and to "condemn the killings."
At the White House dinner, Jewish leaders were assured in private talks with Bush that he was not going to waver in his solidarity with Israel. Bush, in his public remarks, did not speak of the incident, talking instead about the importance of battling anti-Semitism and recalling his recent visit to a Nazi concentration camp.
"Everybody came away encouraged and pleased," said Nathan Diament, who had helped to craft a statement from orthodox Jews criticizing the White House. Diament said he was convinced the administration "clearly is not going to put pressure on Israel in the face of terrorist assaults."
Bush said as much in his next public remarks on the Middle East, on June 15. "The message is clear: Prime Minister Abbas wants peace; Prime Minister Sharon wants peace; America wants peace; the European Union wants peace," he said. "But there are clearly killers who don't. . . . [B]efore that state is established, it is clear that the free world, those who love freedom and peace, must deal harshly with Hamas and the killers. And that's just the way it is in the Middle East."
Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer said the Jerusalem bombing "did change the immediate focus" of the administration's rhetoric. But Fleischer added that "the president will not be shy about reminding Israel of its responsibilities."
Still, Jewish leaders are not expecting more such reminders anytime soon. "It was a human reaction more than a change in policy," Republican Jewish Coalition Director Matthew Brooks said of the Bush criticism. "I account for it as a very, very small blip."
*****************************
******************************
Iraq was invaded 'to protect Israel' - US official
By Emad Mekay
WASHINGTON - Iraq under Saddam Hussein did not pose a threat to the United States, but it did to Israel, which is one reason why Washington invaded the Arab country, according to a speech made by a member of a top-level White House intelligence group.
Inter Press Service uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the US in September 2001 - the 9/11 commission - in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch US ally in the Middle East.
Zelikow's casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to protect Israel appears at odds with the public position of US President George W Bush and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the link between its war on the regime of Saddam and its concern for Israel's security.
The administration has instead insisted it launched the war to liberate the Iraqi people, destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to protect the United States.
Zelikow made his statements about "the unstated threat" during his tenure on a highly knowledgeable and well-connected body known as the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), which reports directly to the president. He served on the board between 2001 and 2003.
"Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat [is] and actually has been since 1990 - it's the threat against Israel," Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on September 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of September 11 and the future of the war on al-Qaeda.
"And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell," said Zelikow.
The statements are the first to surface from a source closely linked to the Bush administration acknowledging that the war, which has so far cost the lives of nearly 600 US troops and thousands of Iraqis, was motivated by Washington's desire to defend the Jewish state.
The administration, which is surrounded by staunch pro-Israel, neo-conservative hawks, is currently fighting an extensive campaign to ward off accusations that it derailed the "war on terrorism" it launched after September 11 by taking a detour to Iraq, which appears to have posed no direct threat to the US.
Israel is Washington's biggest ally in the Middle East, receiving annual direct aid of US$3-4 billion.
****************************
Read again the Washington Post article I just posted. Here is G. Bush, the American President, being treated like a naughty schoolboy who ought to know better than dare criticize Israel and gets a slap in the face!
But most scary and truly incomprehensible is the ATTITUDE of those leaders. Incredible arrogance. Drunk in the hybris of their own power.
Just read it again. This article is one of many I could post if the Stalinist legions continue flooding this blog trying to tell us the Lobby has no power. Hell, why don't they just visit AIPAC's own website -shamelessly bragging about its power - and get a clue!
I should report these comments to the FBI. from what I've heard they are more intersted in AIPAC than any ( other )terrorist groups in the US. If we got the CIA and other intelligence agencies on board it would probably be a lot easier than tracking al queda. with the results more likely to lead to less terrorism. sounds like a plan.
If pro-israeli jews are dedicated enough to haunt every comment Weiss makes, might they not be dedicated enough to lobby congress, bullshit the media, and otherwise do what every lobby in America does?
Lester:
"sounds like a plan"
It won't work. Read following article to see why.
Jimmy:
"what every lobby in America does"
Not exactly. I doubt you would ever see 100 leaders of say, the Greek Lobby slapping Bush around for criticism of Greece, not to mention some even more serious history here:
******************************
New Israeli spy probe has a 30-year history, insiders say
By Jim Lobe
Updated Sep 14, 2004, 10:20 pm
SEATTLE (IPS/GIN) - The burgeoning probe over claims that a Pentagon official passed highly classified secrets to a Zionist lobby group is part of a much broader network of FBI and Pentagon investigations of prominent U.S. neo-conservatives and their ties to Israel dating back some 30 years, according to knowledgeable sources.
The sources, who asked to not be identified, said the FBI has been intensively reviewing a series of past counter-intelligence probes that were started against several high-profile neo-cons but never followed up with prosecutions, due to political pressure, to the great frustration of counter-intelligence officers.
Some of these past investigations involve top current officials, including Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz; Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith, whose office appears to be the focus of the most recently disclosed inquiry; and Richard Perle, who resigned as Defense Policy Board (DPB) chairman last year.
All three were the subject of a lengthy investigative story by Stephen Green published by the progressive newsletter Counterpunch in February. Mr. Green is the author of two books on U.S.-Israeli relations, including
" ..... and otherwise do what every lobby in America does?"
The point is that every lobby in America -- with the exception of the Israel lobby -- is looking after the interests of a particular group of American citizens. The Israel lobby is looking after the interests of the government of a foreign country.
"The point is that every lobby in America -- with the exception of the Israel lobby -- is looking after the interests of a particular group of American citizens. The Israel lobby is looking after the interests of the government of a foreign country..."
Not at all. Ever hear of "Think Global - Act Local". Its the calling card of the Environmental Lobby. They don't represent any particular citizens; they simply advocate a foreign and domestic policy agenda which they feel is proper and moral and thus good for all. So does Aipac. Of course if you're a polluter, then chances are you won't agree with the Environmental Lobby. And if you're an Arab terror supporter (which is a different type of polluter really), then chances are you won't agree with Aipac.
APS,
Maybe you didn't read the article on Wolfowitz, Perle, Faith, Ledeen etc. having being investigated by the FBI.
Scroll up.
Not to mention the current investigations on Franklin and the two AIPAC powerheads, plus Jane Harman being investigated by the Justice Department for her dealings with the Lobby!
When we see lobbyists for the Environmental Lobby being investigated by the FBI for giving classified information to a foreign country, even while being members of the US government, plus advocating for wars in the Middle East or elsewhere, then we might accept your ridiculous comparison.
You know, the worse thing about you Lobby and Israel apologists is you underestimating our intelligence.
You think you are so smart, but unfortunately you missed the meaning of the Internet and the info revolution.
Too many people are finally getting info within minutes on such issues, something which wasn't possible a few years ago. Anyone can read today say the Ben Gurion diaries, or Jabotinsky, or look at the "generous offer" maps on the internet today. Or the map of the settlements and the progress of that project in the last 30+ years. Maybe you are not that smart after all, or maybe you are simply desperate.
OK, time for the anti-Semitism card now, I know, I know...
"APS,
Maybe you didn't read the article on Wolfowitz, Perle, Faith, Ledeen etc. having being investigated by the FBI.Scroll up."
Sure I saw it. Its from "Final Call" - the magazine of the "Nation of Islam". And of course I expect followers of the Nation of Islam to believe in it with the same devotion that they believe in Allah's 72 Virgins of paradise. But what about those of us who aren't slaves of the Nation of Islam? Those of us follow the Nation of America? Don't we have the right to reject such nonsense?
"You think you are so smart, but unfortunately you missed the meaning of the Internet and the info revolution."
On the contrary, as even Phil Weiss lamented in a column last week, the recent elections have seen more Jews elected to Congress than ever before; 13 in the Senate alone - ten times their proportion to the population. Meanwhile, Islamo-fascist 3rd Party candidates have been performing abysmally. Pat Buchanan in 2000; Ralph Nader in 2004; and local candidates like Kevin Zeese in the current election cycle. Islamo-fascists just can't get their foot in the door, and I'd say the internet is clearly responsible for this positive development. A wonderful thing, isn't it?
APS
That was a rather pathetic try. I wanted to say "good try". But:
1) Say clearly, do you deny that Wolfowitz, Perle, Faith, Ledeen and other neo-cons have been investigated by the FBI for passing classified information to Israel?
You may shoot the messenger all you want, but is it true or not?
2) Do you deny that Steve Rosen, AIPAC's former policy director, and Keith Weissman, its former senior Iran analyst; Naor Gilon, in charge of policy at the Israeli Embassy in Washington; and Uzi Arad, a former Israeli intelligence agent, are all indicted in the Larry Franklin (sentenced to 13 years in prison) espionage case on the following charges:
Count 1: Conspiracy to communicate national defense information to persons not entitled to receive it.
Count 2: Communication of classified information to persons not entitled to receive it.
Count 3: Unlawful retention of national defense information.
Their lawyer btw is Plato Cacheris (lawyer to spies Aldrich Ames, Robert Hanssen, Ana Montes)!
Or are you maybe suggesting that the Justice Department belongs to the Nation of Islam?
Waiting for clear answers. Now, why do I have a feeling you will dodge the questions?
Until I see a better source than the Nation of Islam (or Al Jezera), then frankly I don't believe it. At most it looks like political in-fighting, but even that can't be verified by your unconfirmed "sources". Or can you give me one good reason I should believe your Nation of Islam? (Don't dodge).
As for the Aipac investigations - Sure the Administration is trying to clamp down on the FIrst Amendment. You can read all about it here in the Baltimonr Examiner (if you'll accept Non-Islamic Sources). http://www.examiner.com/a-386228~Nat_Hentoff__Mugging_the_Minutemen.html
That's not surprising though. As Bob Woodward points out in his book, the Bush Family is thick as thieves with the Saudi Royals. And they can't allow anyone who criticizes Prince Bandar, now can they?
Fortunately. the American people are rejecting such heavy handed tactics. And the latest election proves it - more Jews elected, more supporters of our democratic allies (like Israel). Even Phil Weiss was crying about it in an earlier column.
Look what the judenrat Phil Weiss is up to now:
http://www.phillymag.com/articles/oy_vey_there_goes_the_neighborhood
Wow, he's even writing a book on the virtues of intermarriage and assimilation so Judaism goes away in a few generation and how those pesky orthodox ruin neighborhood and the Jews ruin the world.....
APS,
1) Jim Lobe is a syndicated columnist and his articles appear to many many publications, including the Nation and Asia Times Online. Your "Islamic Sources" smokescreen is ridiculous.
2) That these neo-cons have been investigated by the FBI is a fact they don't even themselves deny. It is in fact the reason why Ledeen couldn't be brought in the government in a high position (couldn't get security clearance).
3) Your explanation for the AIPAC indictments is that
a) "the administration is trying to clamp down on the First Amendment"???
and
b)"the Bush Family is thick as thieves with the Saudi Royals. And they can't allow anyone who criticizes Prince Bandar, now can they?"???
Either you are delusional or you simply are trying to create "noise" in a clear-cut federal investigation which has all participants on videotape for god's sake!
Either way, credibility lost.
alan- good info. are you a republican per chance? just an impression.
Also, not to side track the topic, but did anyone see tha murkovitch guy on CSPAN. come on neo cons, you have to admit that guy is LAME. he was just making stuff up! no empirical data whatsoever
Ralph Nader is an Islamo-fascist? Heavy.
Guy doesn't know who Jim Lobe is? And also thinks he's smarter than us?
What I would like to know is, how did these people manage to get so much power? They are stupider than a plate of warmed up brocolli. Really have the mentality of The Mob if you ask me.
Every time I see the rabid attacks on anyone trying to talk sense about Israel and the US's relation with it, I wonder if any of them are part of the 5000 cyber-soldiers commissioned by Israel to "say nice things" about the Zionist state? The quality of argument (or lack thereof) is embarassing. With any luck, the ability to drown out the discussion of critical foreign policy issues will be at an end soon. Thanks for your piece Mr. Weiss.
LanceThruster, your comment about the 5000 cyber-soldiers for Israel is resonating very strongly with me and I'd like to find out more about this. Would you be kind enough to give a link?
I read a comment by Philip Roth on I think maybe the Jonathan Pollard case -- one of those celebrated cases where an American Jew was approached by the Mossad to help out the cause of Israel in a specific way, doing something which was either illegal or traitorous to the US. Roth said that even though he doesn't support the ideology of Eretz Israel, the spy scandal left him feeling afraid, because, he said, he knew that if he was approached he would likely do it. A most interesting commentary from one of our finest American writers, I thought, and something which could only have come from a person who has spent a lifetime searching his psyche and reporting on it.
Brenda,
You wouldn't believe how effective they are at mobilizing, however they constantly shoot themselves in the foot because no matter how sophisticated a campaign, you can't defend the indefensible. One is reminded of Bush commissioning Karen Hughes to work her public relations genius to improve the US image in muslim countries! Yeah, good luck with that: "It's not the policies stupid, it's the poor PR campaign!"
There are paid professionals, propaganda experts. I don't know how many.
On a grassroots level, check this desktop alerter:
http://www.giyus.org/
On the campus, check out those ready-for-use sound bites and some simple, nasty propaganda techniques here:
http://www.wujs.org.il/hasbara/advocacyresources.shtml#adr
Hasbara is basically propaganda for dummies. You can download it and read it, it's fun. Now that's what I call an education!
Here is also an article I found (from the giyus.org site) on this propaganda web campaign:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1952099,00.html
This was the original story I saw on the cyber-soldiers. Notice that they are funded and approved by Israel (through the Foreign Ministry).
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-2289232,00.html
[excerpt]
"Israel�s Government has thrown its weight behind efforts by supporters to counter what it believes to be negative bias and a tide of pro-Arab propaganda. The Foreign Ministry has ordered trainee diplomats to track websites and chatrooms so that networks of US and European groups with hundreds of thousands of Jewish activists can place supportive messages.
In the past week nearly 5,000 members of the World Union of Jewish Students (WUJS) have downloaded special �megaphone� software that alerts them to anti-Israeli chatrooms or internet polls to enable them to post contrary viewpoints. A student team in Jerusalem combs the web in a host of different languages to flag the sites so that those who have signed up can influence an opinion survey or the course of a debate."
[end text]
As has been also mentioned, check out the Hasbara propaganda tutorial.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hasbara&redirect=no
[excerpt]
"Hasbara Campus Manual
The Hasbara Handbook: Promoting Israel on Campus, is now available online. And this is an interesting admission (page 31 onwards):
Propaganda is used by those who want to communicate in ways that engage the emotions and downplay rationality, in an attempt to promote a certain message.
The manual goes on to describe seven propaganda techniques:
1. Name calling: through the careful use of words, then name calling technique links a person or an idea to a negative symbol.
2. Glittering generality: Simply put, glittering generality is name calling in reverse. Instead of trying to attach negative meanings to ideas or people, glittering generalities use positive phrases, which the audience are attached to, in order to lend positive image to things. Words such as "freedom", "civilization",�
3. Transfer: Transfer involves taking some of the prestige and authority of one concept and applying it to another. For example, a speaker might decide to speak in front of a United Nations flag, in an attempt to gain legitimacy for himself or his idea.
4. Testimonial: Testimonial means enlisting the support of somebody admired or famous to endorse and ideal or campaign.
5. Plain folks: The plain folks technique attempts to convince the listener that the speaker is a 'regular guy', who is trust-worthy because the are like 'you or me'.
6. Fear
7. Bandwagon
The examples given are very interesting, and worth reading."
[end text]
Many thanks, dudes.
Whaddya think, is Pearlman, wiseking et al influencing the debate on this blog? Are the Israeli cyber-soldiers accomplishing their mission, changing hearts and minds?
Speaking for myself, no. My attitude has hardened since I came into contact with them. If they are supposed to be giving a positive image of Israel and Israelis they're not doing a very good job, in my opinion.
Brenda,
No, their tactics are self-defeating. The problem is that the people willing to become such advocates are usually not well informed if they are not completely brainwashed, like Pearlman here. And since they can't engage in real debate, they resort to cheap propaganda tactics. I know for a fact that many people were outraged in Britain when on online newspaper reports of the recent Beit-Hanoun tragedy, such activists flooded the talkback sections spitting venom and incredible hatred, not having the slightest sympathy for all those civilians killed, including sleeping children...
You see, it is one thing to know that this cycle of violence continues with such tragedies for both sides and quite another to see this ugly face of Israeli advocates not showing the slightest remorse or sadness. On top of that, calling reasonable people who tried to point this thing out anti-Semites and Jew-haters outraged Britons even more...
Everybody loved Israel until 1967. Later things started to change, and today public opinion everywhere has shifted dramatically. Even worse, a great part of Jewish youth, which is highly idealistic and very bright, refuses to defend this extremist fantasy of Eretz Israel and people like Bibi or Lieberman or justify what is happening to the Palestinians.
So what Israel is left with for advocacy are mostly religious fanatics and misguided, brainwashed people like Pearlman who achieve nothing if not the exact opposite result, as you pointed out yourself.
There is a fantastic article by Tony Judt published in Haaretz, which explains exactly why Israel finds itself today in such a dangerous situation. It is a shame Jewish leaders in the US refuse to see the truth and continue hurting Israel. Then they also express sorrow at what is happening with Jewish youth parting ways.
They should look in the mirror.
Here is Tony Judt's fantastic article, an absolute must-read:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/711997.html