| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 9:13 am Post subject: |
| http://www.nytimes.com
September 23, 2007
Dual Loyalties
By LESLIE H. GELB
THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY
By John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt.
484 pp. Farrar, Straus & Giroux. $26.
Fidel Castro thundered at me in a private meeting a decade ago: “You don’t have a democracy. Most Americans want good relations with Cuba, but a few thousand Cuban-American right-wingers control U.S. policy and make everything between us bad.” Castro was certainly right on one count — the Cuban American National Foundation essentially calls the tune on our Cuba policy because of its voting clout in a few key states, its generous campaign contributions and its passion.
Two highly respected scholars hurl almost identical charges — and worse — at “a loose coalition of individuals and organizations” that lobby for Israel, including the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, the Anti-Defamation League, the publisher Mortimer Zuckerman and the neoconservatives.
Castro can be ignored because Cuba is not very important to American security. But John Mearsheimer, a professor at the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt, a professor at Harvard, can’t, because the Middle East is vital and because they’re arguing that the Jewish lobby pushes policy in directions that “jeopardize U.S. national security.”
Their book, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” is an extended version of their highly controversial article of a year ago, which appeared in The London Review of Books. Now, as then, they contend that the lobby has made United States policy so lopsidedly pro-Israel that it fuels Muslim terrorism against the United States, fosters the spread of nuclear weapons in Arab states and puts at added risk America’s critical energy supplies from the Persian Gulf.
This commentary could not be more serious, and I believe that the authors are mostly wrong, as well as dangerously misleading. But Mearsheimer and Walt are raising the very same fundamental, gut-check issues about American security and who controls policy that many Middle East experts talk about mostly in private. Former President Jimmy Carter made similar points, if rather hotly and self-righteously, in his recent book, “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.” Mearsheimer and Walt, together with Carter and their phalanx of backers at universities and research institutes, have to be answered, not by calling them anti-Semites, but on the merits.
Mearsheimer and Walt live in the same foreign policy world I inhabit, and no one familiar with their extensive scholarship or their lives ever accused them of harboring anti-Semitic sentiments ... until the appearance of their article last year. And such charges are not unusual in this little world. But as my mother often said, “They asked for trouble” — by the way they make their arguments, by their puzzlingly shoddy scholarship, by what they emphasize and de-emphasize, by what they leave out and by writing on this sensitive topic without doing extensive interviews with the lobbyists and the lobbied.
Early on, they write that the Jewish lobby is “certainly not a cabal or conspiracy that ‘controls’ U.S. foreign policy.” They go on: “It is simply a powerful interest group, made up of both Jews and gentiles, whose acknowledged purpose is to press Israel’s case within the United States. ... Like the efforts of other ethnic lobbies and interest groups, the activities of the Israel lobby’s various elements are legitimate forms of democratic political participation, and they are for the most part consistent with America’s long tradition of interest-group activity.” No problem here.
But then they heat things up, declaring that no lobby has ever been more powerful. They start quoting others, like former Representative Lee Hamilton, who said in 1991 that “there’s no lobby group that matches it.” And they cite a number of staff members for the lobby bragging about their power. One said: “In 24 hours, we could have the signatures of 70 senators on this napkin.” Publishing these one-liners as some kind of evidence is not the stuff of good scholarship.
Most tellingly, and contrary to their careful opening definitions, Mearsheimer and Walt move on to one story after another, premised on the lobby’s domination of United States policy toward the Middle East. But they rarely back that premise up.
It’s true, for instance, that the lobby has made America’s longstanding $3 billion annual aid program to Israel untouchable and indiscussible. By the same token, there isn’t much discussion about the $2 billion yearly aid package for Egypt. The United States regards this $5 billion as insurance against an Egyptian-Israeli war, and it’s cheap at double the price.
The lobby also gives hives and hesitation to any administration thinking about criticizing Israel publicly. But instinctively and without being lobbied, American presidents don’t want to gang up on Israel, since virtually every other state does so. While most countries hammer Israel for crackdowns on the Palestinians, they hardly ever criticize Palestinian terrorists or other Arab terrorists and say little about the misdeeds of Arab and Muslim dictators. As for the American government, the record clearly shows that when Israel crosses certain important lines, as when it expanded Jewish settlements into Palestinian areas like the West Bank and Gaza, Washington usually expresses its displeasure in public and, even more so, in private. Mearsheimer and Walt just don’t mention that.
More troublingly, they don’t seriously review the facts of the two most critical issues to Israel and the lobby — arms sales to Arab states and the question of a Palestinian state — matters on which the American position has consistently run counter to the so-called all-powerful Jewish lobby.
For several decades, administration after administration has sold Saudi Arabia and other Arab states first-rate modern weapons, against the all-out opposition of Israel and the lobby. And make no mistake, these arms have represented genuine security risks to Israel. (Interestingly, Israel does not oppose the new $20 billion proposed arms sale to the Saudis, on the grounds that the weapons are needed against Iran, the bigger threat; and not surprisingly, Israel is reportedly receiving substantial additional military aid as well.)
And on the policy issue that has counted most to Israel and the lobby — preventing the United States from accepting a Palestinian state prior to a negotiated deal between Israel and the Palestinians — it’s fair to say Washington has quietly sided with the Palestinians for a long time. Every administration since 1967, when Israel won a war and occupied the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, has privately favored returning almost all of that territory to the Palestinians for the purposes of creating a separate Palestinian state. President George W. Bush finally said this publicly in 2001, but Israeli leaders and lobbyists who weren’t in total denial knew the unspoken reality all along. If the lobby and Israel called the shots the way Mearsheimer and Walt and so many other Middle East experts insist, the United States would not have sold all those arms to the Arabs and never would have leaned in private toward a Palestinian state.
Most unbiased students of the matter would probably agree that the lobby is the single most influential force on American policy toward Israel. But among lobbies in Washington, it is one among many strong players. It is almost certainly less powerful than the pro-Taiwan China lobby, which successfully blocked American contacts with China, or even talk of it, throughout most of the cold war. It doesn’t touch the power of the gun lobby, or AARP when it presses for the interests of senior citizens. In fact, just to set all of this in a perspective that should be known to Mearsheimer and Walt, lobbying is how American democracy works. We have a democracy of “minorities rule,” as the great Yale political scientist Robert Dahl once explained, writing of the endless array of special-interest groups that control their issues almost totally.
As part of their incomplete picture, the two authors also minimize the lobbying influence of the Saudis and the oil companies, the other major forces on Middle East policy. The Saudis, along with the Egyptians, have been significant voices in Washington, arguing for a Palestinian state. Moreover, if Mearsheimer and Walt had asked policy participants over the years, they would have been told that the Saudis are the single most potent regional voice in American policy toward the gulf. And Riyadh, at least as much as Jerusalem, has been urging Washington to confront Iran. As for the oil companies, Mearsheimer and Walt say it’s obvious the firms want peace because peace is good for business. But it’s hard to ignore the fact that the Iraq war has added tens of billions to their coffers.
In any event, the real issue is not whether the Israel lobby controls policy toward Israel and the Middle East. All strong lobbies aspire to exercise control. The real issue is whether the Jewish lobby’s power seriously undermines or damages American interests.
Where Israel should stand in the hierarchy of American national interests has been one of the hot-button issues of American foreign policy since Israel’s founding in 1948. The first big question was whether the United States should recognize Israel at the United Nations. The most memorable battle over this issue took place in front of President Harry Truman. The contenders were his young but formidable counsel, Clark Clifford, and Secretary of State George Marshall, the single most respected American foreign policy figure of his era.
Clifford argued for recognition on moral and historical grounds. The United States and the world had a moral obligation to support a Jewish state because everyone had stood by and done nothing during the Holocaust. Marshall retorted that recognition would distort America’s true interests in the Arab world, mainly securing oil, to gain Jewish political backing at home. To Marshall, a few million Jews in their own state amid a sea of tens of millions of Arabs would cause nothing but grief for America, and in the end, the Arabs would drive the Jews into the sea anyway. Truman backed Clifford, but the battle never ended.
Israel and the lobby made, and for good reasons won, the case during the cold war that Israel was a strategic asset for the United States. During this period, many Arab leaders played games with Moscow and were not reliable allies. By contrast, Washington could count fully on Israel for intelligence and joint weapons development and as a base of military operations, if need be. But with the Soviet Union’s demise and the rise of new threats, the argument reopened about how vital Israel really was to the United States.
And here we arrive at the heart of the thesis of “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy”:
“Many policies pursued on Israel’s behalf now jeopardize U.S. national security. The combination of unstinting U.S. support for Israel and Israel’s prolonged occupation of Palestinian territory has fueled anti-Americanism throughout the Arab and Islamic world, thereby increasing the threat from international terrorism and making it harder for Washington to deal with other problems, such as shutting down Iran’s nuclear program. Because the United States is now so unpopular within the broader region, Arab leaders who might otherwise share U.S. goals are reluctant to help us openly, a predicament that cripples U.S. efforts to deal with a host of regional challenges.”
At one level, this argument is obviously correct. Of course, America’s close ties with Israel compound its problems with Arabs and Muslims. But at a deeper level, one ignored by Mearsheimer and Walt, these problems would not disappear or seriously lessen if Washington abandoned Israel. The main source of anti-Americanism and anti-American terrorism is America’s deep ties with highly unpopular regimes in countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, not to mention the war in Iraq.
Similarly, Mearsheimer and Walt mostly dodge the question of how to fix this problem. They don’t want to abandon Israel, they say, but they do want the United States to distance itself from Israeli policies. Does that mean talking to the Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists? These groups are relentlessly committed to violence and to the total destruction of Israel. What is there to talk about? As for pressing Israel to turn over the territories and accept Palestinian statehood now, there is the slight problem of which Palestinians to bargain with — the Hamas leaders, who genuinely have broad support, or the far less popular and far more corrupt Fatah party. Besides, what concessions do Mearsheimer and Walt want Israel to make beyond what it has made? In the closing days of the Clinton administration, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak met almost all Palestinian demands for a negotiated solution and was effectively turned down.
To be sure, Washington’s ties with Israel make things harder for United States policy, but historically, the prime effect of the relationship has been to provide Arab leaders and discontented Arabs with an excuse for not putting their own houses in order. I doubt Mearsheimer and Walt believe that if Washington stiff-armed Israel, this would induce Arab leaders to address their real problems or produce peace in the Middle East.
Then there is the issue of nuclear weapons and taming the proliferation genie. Yes, Israel’s nuclear ability adds to the hurdles Washington faces. But Mearsheimer and Walt should know that the driving force behind Saddam Hussein’s quest for these arms had much less to do with Israel’s nuclear weapons than with the threats he saw from Iran and the United States. The same is true for Iran today. Like Hussein, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad knows that only the United States can topple him and the regime of the mullahs he represents, and he wants the bomb principally for deterrence.
America’s central strategic problem in the region — the main reason to worry about future terrorists, nuclear proliferation and energy supplies — is that we need our corrupt, inept and unpopular Arab allies because the likely alternative to them is far worse. There is no reliable and strong Arab moderate force in the Middle East at present. Washington’s long-term goal must be to help build one. Yet Mearsheimer and Walt offer us no counsel on how to do this.
It’s important to remember that the shah of Iran was overthrown not because he enjoyed good relations with Israel, which he did, but because a majority of his own people came to hate his regime and also his ties to the United States. There was no sustainable moderate center between the shah and the fanatical mullahs. And the lack of such a center is precisely what Washington needs to worry about now in places like Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
As it happens, America’s commitment to Israel rests far more on moral and historical grounds than on strict strategic ones. Israel does not harm American security interests to anywhere near the degree that Mearsheimer and Walt claim it does. And the major reality is that despite whatever difficulties the Israeli-American relationship might cause, the United States is helping to protect one of the few nations in the world that share American values and interests, a true democracy. This is the greatest strategic bond between the two countries. (And not to be overlooked is the fact that when push has come to shove, Israel has always defended itself.)
The inevitable last question is this: Why have two such serious students of United States foreign policy written so weak a book and added fuel, inadvertently, to the fires of anti-Semitism? The answer lies in their treatment of the Iraq war.
Mearsheimer and Walt should feel very proud, indeed, for their foresight in opposing the Iraq war. Their writings were more on target than anyone’s, and they are justifiably mystified about how the United States could have been so stupid and self-destructive. They appear to have reasoned that a mistake of this magnitude could have been fostered only by some irresistible force. And the only such force they can conjure from the landscape of the powerful is the Israel lobby, as embodied by neoconservative gladiators like Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. In the authors’ words, “the lobby did not cause the war by itself. ... But absent the lobby’s influence, there almost certainly would not have been a war. The lobby was a necessary but not sufficient condition for a war that is a strategic disaster for the United States and a boon for Iran, Israel’s most serious regional adversary.”
Their vitriol about the Iraq war — about being so right while others were so wrong — is so overwhelming that they minimize two key facts. First, America’s foreign policy community, including many Democrats as well as Republicans, supported the war for the very same reasons that Wolfowitz and the lobby did — namely, the fact that Hussein seemed to pose a present or future threat to American national interests. Second, the real play-callers behind the war were President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. They hardly have a history of being in the pockets of the Jewish lobby (more like the oil lobby’s), and they aren’t remotely neoconservatives. The more we know, the clearer it is that the White House went to war primarily to erase the “blunder” of the elder Bush in not finishing off Saddam Hussein during the Persian Gulf war of 1991.
Now, Mearsheimer and Walt fear that Israel and the lobby will shove the United States into a new war with Iran: “They are the central forces today behind all the talk ... about using military force to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities. Unfortunately, such rhetoric makes it harder, not easier, to stop Iran from going nuclear.”
They are right again about why the United States should not be making counterproductive threats about war against Iran, let alone fighting another war. But they are wrong again about the prime movers behind the bombast. Wolfowitz and Perle and company surely favor another nice little war, but they are temporarily discredited. Meanwhile, plenty of foreign policy experts and politicians now call for “getting Iran.” And by the way, so do the two most powerful men in America, who neither need nor heed lobbying — George Bush and Dick Cheney.
Leslie H. Gelb, a former columnist for The Times and the president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, is finishing a book on international power in the 21st century | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 7:36 pm Post subject: Israeli Slams Settlers for Influencing US Foreign Policy |
| Israeli Slams Settlers for Influencing US Foreign Policy
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4§ion=0&article=102070&d=5&m=10&y=2007
Barbara Ferguson, Arab News —
WASHINGTON, 5 October 2007 — It’s not often you hear an Israeli attack the American pro-Israeli lobby for sabotaging US foreign policy regarding the Mideast peace talks, but Akiva Eldar is no man to mince words.
“A small minority of people dictates their interests to the US and the Middle East, and the mainstream American Jewish lobby is directing US decisions from Israel,” said Eldar, chief political columnist for Ha’aretz.
Eldar, in Washington this week to promote his book, “Lords of the Land,” spoke at the Washington-based Foundation for Middle East Peace, which co-hosted the event with Americans for Peace Now.
“The settlements are the ultimate proof that the American Jewish lobby should get an award for dictating their policy to the US government,” Eldar told the audience.
In his book, just released in English, examines the history of Israeli settlements and accompanying military occupation in the lands conquered in 1967 and their effect on Israeli and Palestinian society.
Called the “encyclopedia on the illegal settlements,” “Lords of the Land” details how settlements, occupation and settlers’ messianic religion have transformed Israel and shaken the foundations of its society.
This is the second book recently published that scathingly attacks the American Jewish lobby, and Eldar’s views parallel John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt’s book, “The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy,” published in September.
“Most people in the Middle East want peace and a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine,” said Eldar, noting that the illegal settlements remain “a serious, but not impossible, obstacle to peace.
“The Arab League Peace Initiative offers Israel peace with 22 Arab countries in return for Israel’s withdrawal to the 1967 borders,” said Eldar. “The majority of Israelis agree with this, but the settlers’ lobbies — both in the US and Israel — are so strong that it turns us away from peace.”
Eldar, the last Israeli journalist to interview Yasir Arafat before his death, and the first to interview Mahmoud Abbas after elected prime minister, was named by The Financial Times last year as “one of the most influential political commentators in the world.”
Focusing on the Mideast peace meeting recently announced by President George W. Bush and expected to be held on Nov. 15 in Annapolis, Maryland, Eldar said: “[Israeli Prime Minister Ehud] Olmert, [Palestinian President Mahmoud] Abbas and Bush are all lame ducks. They’re like gamblers with their very last dollar to play.”
Still, Eldar believes the American government “must serve as a bridge between Israel and Palestinians.”
Olmert could accept a two-state solution, said Eldar, because “he’s an intelligent individual who knows there is no better solution. Not because he feels we’re doing an injustice to the Palestinians, but simply because he knows it is the only choice.”
Eldar said the Annapolis peace talks — the list of prospective invitees is expected to include Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and the Quartet: Russia, the EU and the UN — should pressure Israel to force the settlers from the Palestinian side of the West Bank.
“I believe the Wall [that divides the West Bank] did us a favor, as it brought back the idea of partition in Israel.”
Thus, Eldar said, the problem is “no longer where, but when we withdraw to the line.”
“Only 60,000 Israelis live on the east side of the Wall, so it is still possible for them to make ‘aliyah,’ [Hebrew word meaning ‘to emigrate’]. It is possible for them to make ‘aliyah’ to Israel, and we will offer them some of the same benefits we offered settlers who left Gaza.
“The settlements are about Jewish hegemony — and they failed.” | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:09 pm Post subject: |
| Israeli Columnist Akiva Eldar on Nuclear Weapons in the Middle East, Iran, Military Censorship in Israel and the Influence of the Israel Lobby in the United States
Monday, October 8th, 2007
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/08/1341205
Akiva Eldar, chief political columnist and a senior analyst for the Israeli daily “Ha’aretz,” calls for a nuclear-free Middle East and questions whether the Israeli lobby in Washington is contributing to the security of Israel. [includes rush transcript]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The University of St. Thomas in Minnesota has canceled Nobel Peace Prize-winning South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu's scheduled appearance next year. School officials say they are barring Tutu because of previous statements he's made “against Israeli policy.” Tutu has compared Israel's treatment of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories to South Africa under apartheid.
Being able to voice criticism of Israeli government policy is becoming a major issue on university campuses across the United States. It’s also an issue in Congress. We now turn to a well-known Israeli journalist for a sense of what this and other debates look like inside Israel.
Akiva Eldar is the chief political columnist and a senior analyst for the Israeli daily “Ha’aretz.” He is the co-author of a new book critical of Israel's settlement policy. It’s called “Lords of the Land: The Settlers and the State of Israel.” I interviewed Akiva Eldar last month and asked him how the so-called “Israel lobby" in the United States is perceived in Israel.
Akiva Eldar, chief political columnist and a senior analyst for the Israeli daily “Ha’aretz.” He is the co-author of "Lords of the Land: The Settlers and the State of Israel," a new book critical of Israel's settlement policy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RUSH TRANSCRIPT
This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...
AMY GOODMAN: The University of St. Thomas in Minnesota has canceled Nobel Peace Prize-winning South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu's scheduled appearance next year. School officials say they’re barring Tutu because of previous statements he's made “against Israeli policy.” Tutu has compared Israel's treatment of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories to South Africa under Apartheid.
Being able to voice criticism of Israeli government policy is becoming a major issue on university campuses across the United States. It’s also an issue in Congress. We now turn to a well-known Israeli journalist for a sense of what this and other debates look like inside Israel.
Akiva Eldar is the chief political columnist and senior analyst for the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, and he is co-author of a new book; it’s critical of Israeli settlement policy. It’s called Lords of the Land: The Settlers and the State of Israel. I interviewed Akiva Eldar last month and asked him how the so-called “Israel lobby" in the United States is perceived in Israel.
AKIVA ELDAR: They are a very important instrument in order to pursue Israel’s policy, but I’m afraid that they're a little bit behind the Israeli government and the Israeli people. We are in a different mode, which I think takes time for the American Jewish organizations to digest, the fact that we don't want to keep those territories. And probably the Israeli propaganda was so efficient that it's very hard now to change the mode and to convince them that it's a different era now. It's a different government. We have seventy out of 120 members of the Knesset who support a two-state solution based on the ’67 lines.
And, you know, if for forty years, you tell the Jewish community that Israel cannot afford to give up the territories, they are important for Israel’s security, just overnight to tell, “Sorry, we were wrong. Now, we don't need those territories,” it's probably -- I remember, you know, those groups that were taken to the Golan Heights, for instance, we didn’t mention Syria, but the Golan Heights, we told them we can't live without it, because look at the geography or topography, with us sitting there, and they were shelling the Kibbutzim down there, and now, after all this time that they spend going to Capitol Hill and using their leverage to convince the American people not to put any pressure on Israel to give up the Golan Heights, now all of a sudden the Syrians are the good guys and we can get down to business with them? It's very difficult. I think that we are paying the price of having our PR doing a very good job for many years.
AMY GOODMAN: Would you say then the American Jewish organizations are presenting an obstacle to peace?
AKIVA ELDAR: They are, I think, behind the Israeli people, and I think that the bottom line, if you measure this by their results, I don't think that the mainstream Jewish organizations -- there are others like Americans for Peace Now, IPF in America, the Israel Policy Forum, Brit Tzedek v’Shalom and other organizations who are doing a good job, and I think that they are getting more and more listeners.
AMY GOODMAN: How -- what kind of effect did President Carter’s book have in Israel?
AKIVA ELDAR: You know, this is a kind of over-killing. I think that it's like Mearsheimer and Walt’s -- the book --
AMY GOODMAN: On the Israel lobby.
AKIVA ELDAR: On the Israeli lobby. Just to say that Israel and the Jewish lobby controls the United States is overdoing it. They are very powerful, and I think that we, Israel and the Jewish lobby, are playing according to the American rules. You know, when I moved to Washington to be bureau chief of Ha’aretz, I got a tip from a colleague who said, “If you want to succeed, if you want to understand America, follow the money.” And the Jewish lobby has the money and has the motivation and has the power. And they use this, and Washington, as you know better than me, is a city of power. And if you have the power, nobody is disturbing the Arab lobby to use the same kind of power. There are six million Jews who live in the United States and more or less six million Muslims who live here. And it's a free country.
AMY GOODMAN: Why do you think the -- would you say that the Israel lobby is more powerful?
AKIVA ELDAR: Because they're more committed. I think that they are very committed to the -- Israel’s security and well-being of the Israelis, and they are motivated to work and to invest.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you think they're making Israel more secure?
AKIVA ELDAR: No. I think that they have good intentions, but you know sometimes where good intentions are taking people.
AMY GOODMAN: Let me ask you about former UN Ambassador John Bolton's comments, declaring the Bush administration would support an Israeli attack on Iran. In an interview with an Israeli newspaper, Bolton said, "We're talking about a clear message to Iran. Israel has the right to self-defense, and that includes offensive operations against WMD facilities that pose a threat to Israel. The United States would justify such attacks,” he said.
AKIVA ELDAR: I’m not sure if an attack on Iran is in the cards, simply because I don't think that the United States and Israel know exactly where they're hiding the facilities. Iran is a huge country. They have a big desert, and, as far as I understand, both the Israeli and the American intelligence don't know where they're hiding this. You can do this -- what we did in --
AMY GOODMAN: That didn't stop an attack on Iraq.
AKIVA ELDAR: Exactly, but this was different. You can do this only once. What we did -- you mean Israel in ’81 attacking the unit, the Iraqi nuclear facilities in Osirak. The Iranians are not going to repeat the same mistake. They are not putting all their eggs in one basket. They have too many baskets all around. And as far as I know, from my sources, a military attack is not possible.
What is possible is to reach an agreement with Iran and with other Arab countries, because it's not going stop with Iran. I interviewed King Abdullah of Jordan six months ago, and he said, “In no time, you will see every Arab country with nuclear power, including Jordan.” Now, it starts, of course, with nuclear power for civil use. But you don't know where it ends and what will happen if there will be a coup d’etat in one of those Arab countries in a few years. So the Middle East is going to be nuclearized in no time.
And I think that the solution should be a regional agreement. I wonder why the Arab League didn't offer to add another paragraph to the initiative from -- that started in 2002 and was ratified recently, that the Middle East should be nuclear-free, including Israel. I think this has to be part of a regional agreement.
From talking to Iranians, the message that is coming out of the most liberal Iranians, not only from Ahmadinejad, is that “Why shouldn't we have what we think the Israelis have, Pakistan and India?” If Iran will agree to stop their nuclear program, that means that they admit that they are pariah, that they are worse than other countries. So I think we need to offer them a ladder, where they can climb down, and this ladder, I believe, is a regional agreement. And, of course, that means that Iran will have to stop putting out clear threats to the very existence of Israel.
AMY GOODMAN: So you're saying that Israel should give up its nuclear weapons. You have people like Mordechai Vanunu, the nuclear whistleblower who's been re-sentenced again, after serving, oh, many years in jail.
AKIVA ELDAR: As part of a regional peace process, a regional peace agreement. As long as Israel's existence is under threat, I don't believe that you can find any Israeli government that will agree to that. But -- actually this has been the Israeli position when Shimon Peres was prime minister. The official Israeli position was that we will join the NPT and any kind of --
AMY GOODMAN: Nuclear [Non-]Proliferation Treaty.
AKIVA ELDAR: -- Nuclear [Non-]Proliferation Treaty, once the Arab-Israeli conflict, or the Middle East conflict, including the threat from Iran, will be over, not a minute before that, because of the deed of Israel to keep whatever people believe that it keeps in Dimona to deter a war.
AMY GOODMAN: How many nuclear bombs does Israel have?
AKIVA ELDAR: I don't know.
AMY GOODMAN: But you know it does have them?
AKIVA ELDAR: That’s according to our policy, I -- when I write about this, and this is what I have to do now, is to quote the foreign media. But according to foreign media, Israel has got nuclear power.
AMY GOODMAN: Explain that policy.
AKIVA ELDAR: The policy is that we have an Israel military censorship, and there is an agreement between the military censor and the editors of the Israeli papers that when it comes to sensitive issues, we have to submit every story to the censor, such as the last occasion of when the Syrians claimed that the Israelis, the Israeli airplanes, penetrated and attacked some units in Syria, we had to quote the Washington Post, CNN and the Syrian papers.
AMY GOODMAN: And your understanding of what happened there?
AKIVA ELDAR: Yes, I do.
AMY GOODMAN: What happened?
AKIVA ELDAR: According to foreign sources --
AMY GOODMAN: You're in the United States now. Do you still have to abide by --
AKIVA ELDAR: I’m afraid so.
AMY GOODMAN: Why?
AKIVA ELDAR: You don't to want put me into trouble, right? I have to go back to Israel. Well, if you offer me asylum, then I will consider it. But my children are waiting for me at home, so I -- you’ll have to forgive me.
AMY GOODMAN: So can you explain what happened according to these sources?
AKIVA ELDAR: According to these sources, Israel got information from good sources that Syria is hiding nuclear facilities that were transferred from North Korea. I understand that this happened before the agreement between the United States and North Korea. And since Israel had a clear proof that Syria is hiding this and Israel had the opportunity to send Syria a message, that this is just the beginning, that they can't do this, that Israel cannot come to terms with the idea that such cooperation will take place, Israeli -- the Israeli Air Force attacked those units.
AMY GOODMAN: What would happen if you defied the censor?
AKIVA ELDAR: My editor on my newspaper will be fined. I don't think that I will go to jail, but there will be a big fine.
AMY GOODMAN: What do you make of the criticism, when people in the United States criticize the Israeli government or the Israeli military, that they are being anti-Semitic?
AKIVA ELDAR: Look, some people may -- if this book Lords of the Land was written by an American journalist, two American journalists, I’m sure that they would be blamed of anti-Semitism, like President Carter was blamed on being anti-Semite. I think that we are doing great damage to anti-Semitism when we use it in the wrong -- in the wrong time and in the wrong context, because there is anti-Semitism, and it's going to be, you know, the cry -- the wolf’s cry, once there will be anti-Semitism. And I’m afraid it's not -- you know, at the end, nobody will listen to us. So I would be very much careful not to inflate the use of anti-Semitism whenever there is criticism.
For instance, you know, for many years, people were talking about a Palestinian state and negotiations with the PLO. When I was writing articles in the ’80s, in the beginning of the ’80s, in favor of negotiations with the PLO and a two-state solution, some people called me a collaborator with the Palestinians. And if I was not Jewish, they -- I’m sure I would be titled anti-Semite.
AMY GOODMAN: What do you make of the Arab League renewing their peace offer, full peace for full withdrawal? Israel rejected it the first time. What about now?
AKIVA ELDAR: You know, in November, we are going to celebrate ninety years of the Balfour Declaration, which was the first most important document offering a Jewish state to the Jewish people, a state in Israel. I think that the Arab League declaration ninety years later is closing the circle that started, because the Balfour war -- the Balfour Declaration started actually another round of violence, because the Arabs didn’t -- were not willing to accept the idea of a Jewish state. Ninety years later, the Arabs are completing what Balfour started. And I think that this is the best news that we had in ninety years. And I think it is not only stupid, I think it is criminal to miss this opportunity. And I hope that the generations who will come will not regret this.
AMY GOODMAN: Akiva Eldar, the chief diplomatic columnist and senior analyst for the Israeli daily newspaper Ha’aretz. He is co-author of a new book published on the fortieth anniversary of Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. It's called Lords of the Land: The Settlers and the State of Israel. We interviewed Akiva Eldar when he came into our studio.
www.democracynow.org | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 7:03 am Post subject: |
| Originally Aired: October 9, 2007
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec07/israel_10-09.html
Dueling Books Reignite Debate Over Israeli Lobby in United States
Two books examining the Israeli lobby in the U.S., "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," and "The Deadliest Lies," present opposing views on Israel's influence among U.S. policymakers. Authors John Mearsheimer and Abraham Foxman detail their stances.
MARGARET WARNER: A year ago, two American political scientists raised a storm with an article asserting that Israel and its supporters in the United States have far too much influence over American policy. The fight is still going on now in the pages of two books.
"The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" is the work of John Mearsheimer, a professor at the University of Chicago, and Steven Walt, a professor at Harvard. They argue that Israel enjoys an extraordinary level of U.S. support that is now proving a, quote, "strategic liability," closed quote, to U.S. interests in the world. And this outside support, they say, is, quote, "due largely to the political power of the Israel lobby, led by groups like the American-Israel political action committee, or AIPAC.
"The Deadliest Lies" is the title of a rebuttal book by Abraham Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League. He calls the Mearsheimer-Walt book "explosive and inflammatory" and says it is based on, quote, "half-truths, distortions and falsehoods."
We bring the two together now, Professor Mearsheimer joining me here, and Mr. Foxman in New York. And welcome to you both.
John Mearsheimer, first, before we really get into this, define your term. What do you mean by "Israel lobby"?
JOHN MEARSHEIMER, University of Chicago: The Israel lobby, Margaret, is a loose coalition of individuals and groups who worked actively to push American foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction. It's an American interest group along the lines of the National Rifle Association or the American Association for Retired People.
MARGARET WARNER: So what's your evidence that it is distorting American foreign policy in a way that is jeopardizing U.S. security and that it has the degree of influence that it can do so?
JOHN MEARSHEIMER: Well, probably the best example would be U.S. policy on the settlements in the occupied territories. Every American president since Lyndon Johnson in 1967 has opposed, at least officially opposed, the building of settlements in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
Nevertheless, no American president has been able to put any serious pressure on the Israelis to stop that settlement-building. even though there's lots of evidence that that has been one of the principal reasons that the United States is deeply disliked around the world, and it is one of the causes -- not the only cause -- but one of the causes of our terrorism problem.
And the reason, of course, that no president can put any meaningful pressure on the Israelis is because of the Israel lobby.
Abraham Foxman
Director, Anti-Defamation League
The deadly lie is the concept that Jews, wherever they are, disproportionately control government means of media in order to promote their interests.
Israel lobby's role in Iraq war
MARGARET WARNER: So, Mr. Foxman, what is the deadly lie, to use your phrase, that you believe these authors are promoting here?
ABRAHAM FOXMAN, Director, Anti-Defamation League: The deadly lie is the concept that Jews, wherever they are, disproportionately control government means of media in order to promote their interests.
Mearsheimer and Walt in their book basically say that the lobby, which is I guess all those American Jews and some Zionist Christians who support Israel, distort what is America's interest, distort what is in the best interest of the United States, in order to serve the interests of Israel and support of Israel.
And they go as far as saying that -- in their magazine article originally, they said that it was because of the Israel lobby that America went to war in Iraq. They've sort of adjusted it in their book, and they say, "If not for the Israel lobby, America would not be at war," and basically saying the American Jews so control the American government, the administration and Congress and media, that it brought about America's entry into the Iraq war, which is against the interest of the United States.
MARGARET WARNER: Let me read you the exact quote, Mr. Mearsheimer. You say that, "The war was motivated, at least in good part, by a desire to make Israel more secure." And you go on to say, "The war would almost certainly not have occurred had it" -- the Israel lobby -- "been absent."
What is your evidence for that? Because in reading your book, I have to say, I didn't see any quotes from people in the administration saying, "You know, this was a big factor when we sat around the table."
JOHN MEARSHEIMER: Well, first of all, it's quite clear that the government of Israel pushed very hard for the war. Furthermore, it's very clear...
ABRAHAM FOXMAN: It's not clear, but...
JOHN MEARSHEIMER: ... that the principal institutions in the lobby, to include AIPAC, pushed for the war. Now that the war has gone south, a number of Israel's supporters have argued that that's not the case, that the lobby did not push for the war. But there's all sorts of evidence that organizations like AIPAC did push for the war.
And, furthermore, the neoconservatives who are deeply committed to Israeli security, as well as American security, were among the principal force-drivers behind this war.
And when you add all of that up, it's quite clear that one of the principal reasons -- not the only reason, but one of the principal reasons -- that the United States went to war against Iraq was because of the Israel lobby and Israel itself pushing for it.
Abraham Foxman
Director, Anti-Defamation League
If Mearsheimer and Walt were engaged in an honest research and scholarship, they would have found that, number one, the overwhelming majority of American-Jews since before the war to this day are opposed to the war.
Opposition to the war
MARGARET WARNER: And, Foxman, do you dispute that?
ABRAHAM FOXMAN: That's absolute nonsense. First of all, either it is the lobby that forced the war or it isn't. And now we've heard several versions of it.
If Mearsheimer and Walt were engaged in an honest research and scholarship, they would have found that, number one, the overwhelming majority of American-Jews since before the war to this day are opposed to the war. I am part of the lobby, the Anti-Defamation League is, and all that we did is, after the president declared war with Congress, we issued a statement supporting the president's war against terror. AIPAC did the same.
That is nothing close to the type of lobbying that Mearsheimer and Walt claim that the Jewish community and the Israel lobby engaged in.
But Israel, again, had they done their research not selectively, not skewed, they would have found that Prime Minister Sharon advised this administration that he felt that the threat is Iran, not Iraq.
And now we're being told, Margaret, this is only a precursor. The people who brought you the Iraq war, the Israel lobby, the Jewish supporters, are now going to bring you the Iran war. So this is a precursor in terms of the canards, that the American-Jewish community, the Israel lobby, which is part and parcel in their definition, are the ones who are pushing America again to war, against America's interest, against the best interests of the United States.
MARGARET WARNER: Your book does, in fact, argue that now the Israel lobby is pushing for conflict with Iran?
JOHN MEARSHEIMER: Can I respond to a number of the points that Mr. Foxman made?
John Mearsheimer
University of Chicago
Our claim is that the Israel lobby, which is not the Jewish lobby and is not the American-Jewish community, was pushing for the war. With regard to AIPAC, there is hard evidence that AIPAC was pushing for the war.
AIPAC's involvement on Capitol Hill
MARGARET WARNER: Please.
JOHN MEARSHEIMER: First of all, we make it very clear in the book that the American-Jewish community was more opposed to the war than the American body politic at large. We agree with what he says. He's misrepresenting the argument here.
Our claim is that the Israel lobby, which is not the Jewish lobby and is not the American-Jewish community, was pushing for the war. With regard to AIPAC, there is hard evidence that AIPAC was pushing for the war.
Howard Kohr, who is the executive director of AIPAC, told the New York Sun in January 2003 that one of his most important accomplishments for the previous year was quietly pushing for the war in Iraq up on Capitol Hill. So there is evidence that AIPAC was in favor of the war.
ABRAHAM FOXMAN: It's bad scholarship to quote a -- one quote in the New York Sun by the spokesman of AIPAC. Based on that, I hardly believe the United States government would be convinced to go to war.
MARGARET WARNER: Can we go onto what the other point Mr. Foxman made, which is that now the, quote, "Israel lobby" is pushing for conflict with Iran?
JOHN MEARSHEIMER: Well, if you look around the world, there's only one country that is actively pushing the United States to seriously consider military action against Iran, and that country is Israel. Not only its leaders, but its population is in favor of using military force against Iran, if necessary.
Furthermore, if you look at who the voices are inside the United States who are pushing for using military force against Iran, it's essentially the same cast of characters who pushed for war against Iraq. And most of those people, certainly not all of them, but most of them are in the lobby.
John Mearsheimer
University of Chicago
We're not talking about a cabal or a conspiracy, and we make that point very clear. The Israel lobby is an interest group. And it operates in a rich American tradition, which is built around interest group politics.
Legacy of anti-Semitism
MARGARET WARNER: Mr. Foxman, I'd like to ask you about a quote in your book. And you say that, speaking of Mearsheimer and Walt, you say that the book "supports myths and beliefs that anti-Semites have peddled for centuries, thereby giving aid and comfort to some of the most despicable people in our society." That's tough stuff. What are you saying there?
ABRAHAM FOXMAN: Well, Margaret, I have, despite the accusation, never accused Mearsheimer or Walt of being anti-Semites, nor have we ever tried to stifle their debate. But when one cherry-picks and selects events of recent history and piles it on to prove and to show that the Israel lobby, i.e., the Jewish community or those in the Jewish community who support Israel, have power beyond their numbers, that they control, they manipulate the American government, in fact, bringing them to war, they control media, because you can't debate these issues.
These are classic anti-Semitic canards, where Jews have been accused of being responsible for the plague, being responsible for World War I, World War II. We heard it from Pat Buchanan and David Duke in the first Gulf War.
Any time that things go wrong, you scapegoat. And Jews have been scapegoated, especially blamed for wars and calamities. And what this book does in a very sophisticated manner is say, "Well, Israel is not a moral country. It's not really a democratic country. It really doesn't deserve our support because of the way they treat the Palestinians. And Israel is not really in our interest."
So why is it that the United States continues to support Israel? By the way, yes, Israel gets $3 billion a year. So does Egypt get $2 billion a year. What about the oil lobby? Nobody is asking those questions.
MARGARET WARNER: What do you say to that?
JOHN MEARSHEIMER: I think that's true, that his description of that kind of behavior is an old anti-Semitic canard. But the problem is that we didn't say any such thing in our book.
We're not talking about a cabal or a conspiracy, and we make that point very clear. The Israel lobby is an interest group. And it operates in a rich American tradition, which is built around interest group politics. It's like the National Rifle Association or the American Association of Retired People.
MARGARET WARNER: All right, I'm sorry. We have to leave it there. Thank you both.
JOHN MEARSHEIMER: You're welcome.
JIM LEHRER: Abraham Foxman and John Mearsheimer will answer your questions about the Israel lobby in an online forum. To participate, go to our Web site at PBS.org.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/middle_east/july-dec07/israelilobby_1009.html
Posted: October 9, 2007
Authors Debate Influence of Israeli Lobby
Abraham Foxman, Director of the Anti-Defamation League and author of the book "The Deadliest Lies" and John Mearsheimer, a professor at the University of Chicago and co-author of the book "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" answer your questions on Israel's influence in the United States.
A year ago, two American political scientists created a firestorm of controversy when they wrote an article asserting that Israel has too much influence over American policy. Today, two new books reignite the debate.
"The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" is co-authored by John Mearsheimer, a professor at the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt, a professor at Harvard. Mearsheimer and Walt write that the support the United States gives Israel, a result of influence from the Israel lobby, creates a "strategic liability" for U.S. interests in the world.
"The Deadliest Lies: The Israeli Lobby and the Myth of Jewish Control" is the work of Abraham Foxman, the Director of the Anti-Defamation League. Foxman claims that the Mearsheimer-Walt book is based on "half-truths, distortions and falsehoods."
John Mearsheimer and Abraham Foxman take your questions on Israel's supporters in the United States and its influence on policy.
Let's see if the following question gets selected:
Dr. Mearsheimer,
What is the likelihood of the US attacking Iran next for Israel in accordance with the rest of the 'A Clean Break' agenda (of JINSA/PNAC Neoconservatives Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser) that the attack on Iraq was based on(James Bamford's 'A Pretext for War' book discusses the 'A Clean Break/war for Israel agenda on pages 261-269/321)?
Colin Powell has even mentioned that the JINSA crowd was/is in control of the Pentagon (via JINSA/PNAC/AEI associated Dick Cheney) as conveyed in Washington Post editor Karen DeYoung's bio book about him? I noticed that even the State Department allowed the post at its new blog via the following URL:
http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/entires/foley_saudi_arabia/
http://nomorewarforisrael.blogspot.com | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 7:57 am Post subject: 'US support for Israel spurred 9/11' |
| 'US support for Israel spurred 9/11'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MATT RAND, Jerusalem Post Correspondent , THE JERUSALEM POST Oct. 10, 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
US support for Israel was a "major cause" of the 9-11 attacks, according to University of Chicago Professor John Mearsheimer and Harvard Professor Stephen Walt, who appeared at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology last week to promote their book The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy.
"A critically important issue when talking about America's terrorism problem is the matter of how US support for Israel's brutal treatment of the Palestinians relates to what happened on September 11," said Mearsheimer, who played the role of attack dog, while Walt set the stage.
Mearsheimer suggested that the notion of payback for injustices suffered by the Palestinians is perhaps the "most powerfully recurrent in [Osama] Bin Laden's speeches," who, he said, had been deeply concerned about the plight of the Palestinians since he was a young man. He said that Bin Laden's concern had been reflected in his public statements throughout the 1990's - "well before 9-11." Citing the 9-11 Commission report, Mearsheimer and Walt argued that Bin Laden wanted to make sure the attackers struck Congress because it is "the most important source of support for Israel in the United States," adding that Bin Laden twice tried to move up the dates of the attacks because of events involving Israel. Mearsheimer and Walt went on to argue that 9-11 architect Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experiences in the United States as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with US foreign policy favoring Israel. "Its hard to imagine more compelling evidence of the role US support for Israel played in the 9-11 attacks," said Mearsheimer.
"In short, the present relationship between Washington and Jerusalem is helping to fuel America's terrorism problem," he went on to say.
They said that US support for Israel motivates some individuals to attack the United States and "...serves as an important recruitment tool for terrorist organizations," according to Mearsheimer. He said that US support for Israel generates huge support for terrorists in the Arab and Islamic world.
Suggesting that Israel had outlived its usefulness to the United States, Walt added that "Israel may well have been a strategic asset during the Cold War," but that "...the Cold War is now over." He said that America's unconditional support for Israel in the Middle East is "one" of the reasons "we have a terrorism problem, and it makes it harder to address a variety of problems in the Middle East."
At the same time, Walt admitted the US's problems in the Middle East would not disappear if it had a different relationship with Israel, and that the US "does benefit from various forms of strategic cooperation." Walt also noted that Israel's human rights record was not "significantly better than that of the Palestinians," adding that any reasonably fair-minded look at the history of the conflict shows that "neither side owns the moral high ground."
Mearsheimer and Walt argued that Israel and the pro-Israel lobby in the United States were two of the main driving forces behind the decision to invade Iraq. "It is hard to imagine that war happening in their absence," said Mearsheimer, who added that Israel was the only country besides Kuwait where both "the government and the majority of the population favored the war." He said that the Israeli government pushed the Bush administration hard to make sure that it did not lose its nerve in the months before the invasion.
Mearsheimer said there was "no question" that the "neo-conservatives were the main driving force behind the war, but they where supported by the main constituents in the [Israel] lobby, such as AIPAC."
Citing a 2004 editorial, Mearsheimer said that as President Bush attempted to sell the war in Iraq "America's most important Jewish organizations rallied as one to his defense. In statement after statement, [Jewish] community leaders stressed the need to rid the world of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. Concern for Israel's safety rightfully factored into the deliberations of the main Jewish groups."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1191257274889&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 9:08 am Post subject: |
| http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/10/cameras-unwritt.html
October 28, 2007
CAMERA Director: 'Many, Many Times We Have Urged' Israeli Gov't to Take Action Against American Publications
Last Sunday I went to the CAMERA conference on "Jewish defamers of Israel" and it took me a day or two to recognize what the news was: a speech in which CAMERA president Andrea Levin said that the pro-Israel lobbying group has "an unwritten contract" with the American media to watch their step when writing about Israel. Having listened to my recording of the event, I wanted to set out Levin's comments in full.
Levin's speech was about Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper whose bleak portrayal of the occupation has helped to brief the world on the horrifying conditions there. Levin said that after Haaretz ran an opinion column describing the separate roads in the West Bank as "apartheid" roads, CAMERA members wrote letters to Haaretz publisher Amos Schocken saying this was a false charge. She then read from Schocken's responses. In one he said "the term 'roads for Jews only,' which may be mathematically incorrect, is fine with me.. because it describes the true nature and purpose of the roads." In another reply, Schocken wrote, "Your legalistic response is exactly the type that is used to blur reality, rather than clarify it. It is utterly ridiculous not to call these roads apartheid roads because the entire presence of Jews in the Occupied Territories is of an apartheid nature..."
This was distressing, Levin said, because Haaretz calls itself "the New York Times of Israel." The audience groaned and jeered.
Levin said, "The fact is, you know, we may be unhappy with the New York Times from time to time, and we at CAMERA have been, but I have to say we are fortunate. The American media is much, much more geared to understanding that there is an unwritten contract between them and us, and that is, that things should be factually accurate, and we get corrections all the time. Those corrections are very meaningful sometimes. We can prevent the repetition of serious errors... So there is that give and take here in the States."
Someone in the audience asked if the Israeli government couldn't take action. "Good question," Levin said. "Many many times we have urged in regard to American coverage-- to really, really serious defamatory reports in the American media--we have urged the Israel government, whether it was the IDF or some other components of officialdom, to be involved. Times that we thought that legal actions could be taken." But evidently that couldn't happen in Israel, where they have a "very free press."
Wow. An Israel lobbyist turns over some of her cards! Urging the Israeli government to take legal action against American publications over controversial reports? An unwritten contract with the American media not to say apartheid? A give-and-take with the New York Times?
Amos Schocken's lordly indifference to this sort of bullying makes me proud to be a Jew; his is the unassailable authority of a journalist who says what he says because he believes it, and will not be moved...
P.S. A few days ago I blogged about Jerome Slater's article contrasting Haaretz's coverage of the occupation and the New York Times's coverage. Slater argues that the Israel lobby is not the cause of the difference in coverage. I think he's wrong, for any number of reasons. Certainly he has not heard Levin describe her activities.
Posted at 07:46 PM in Israel, Journalism, U.S. Policy in the Mideast | Permalink | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 8:37 pm Post subject: |
| Subject: Get Kucinich, By KEVIN ZEESE
“There is a report circulating the web that before the Nevada primary Kucinich was visited by representatives of Nancy Pelosi and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the right wing Israeli lobby. They told him that if he would drop his campaigns to impeach Cheney and Bush, they would guarantee his re-election to the House of Representatives. Kucinich threw them out of his office.”
“Back home the issue of right wing Israeli lobby funding is becoming an issue. Cimperman put out a press release that urges Kucinich to refute a report in the People's Weekly World Newspaper that said the "Kucinich campaign charged" that Cimperman's effort to unseat Kucinich was financed in large part from "a right-wing pro-Israel group."”
This, folks, is how the Lobby and its puppets operate. Oh, and don’t miss out what AIPAC (in its own words) has accomplished in Washington:
As America's leading pro-Israel lobby, AIPAC works with both Democratic and Republican political leaders to enact public policy that strengthens the vital U.S.-Israel relationship. With the support of its members nationwide, AIPAC has worked with Congress and the Executive Branch on numerous critical initiatives -- from securing vital foreign aid for Israel to stopping Iran's illicit nuclear program. Some highlights include:
Securing critical foreign aid to Israel, which totals $2.42 billion in 2008 and provides military aid and refugee assistance.
Strengthening U.S.-Israel energy cooperation by passing legislation that establishes a grant program that funds joint projects between U.S. and Israeli entities in the field of alternative energy.
Calling upon the administration in a letter signed by more than 180 members of the House to provide strict guarantees that the proposed sale of sophisticated technology to Saudi Arabia will not harm U.S. forces or undercut Israel’s qualitative military edge.
Strongly urging the administration to take its decision to designate Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist group and weapons proliferator through an amendment supported by 76 senators and key legislation passed in the House of Representatives.
Strengthening U.S.-Israel homeland security cooperation by passing landmark legislation creating an office within the Department of Homeland Security to support joint research and development projects between the United States and key allies such as Israel.
Calling for the strengthening of UNIFIL’s mandate to stop arms shipments to Hizballah across the Syrian border by supporting a letter signed by 104 House members.
Highlighting the need to stop weapons smuggling in Gaza through a letter signed by 32 senators urging the United States to press Egypt to take action.
Passing a House resolution congratulating Israel on the 40th anniversary of the Six-Day War, praising the Jewish state for reunifying Jerusalem and protecting religious freedom in the city, and calling on the president to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
Reiterating standards for the Palestinian government through letters signed by 259 House members and 79 senators urging the EU and United States not to provide aid or grant recognition to any Palestinian government until it fulfills internationally backed requirements.
Prohibiting U.S. aid and contacts with the Hamas-led PA until its leaders recognize Israel’s right to exist, renounce violence and ratify previous Israeli-Palestinian peace agreements.
Extending U.S.-backed loan guarantees to Israel until 2011 and renewing the authority to transfer U.S. military equipment to be stored in Israel for use in a potential crisis.
Ratifying an agreement that led to the Israeli medical service Magen David Adom’s admission to the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (IRC).
Condemning Iran for holding a conference casting doubt on whether the Holocaust happened. The resolutions reproached the anti-Semitic statements made by Iranian leaders and asserted the United States’ commitment to preventing a nuclear Iran.
Passing the Iran Freedom Support Act, which renews and strengthens sanctions aimed at curtailing funds and international cooperation necessary for Iran to pursue nuclear weapons.
Passing the Iran Libya Sanctions Act, which seeks to reduce funds for Iran's nuclear weapons program by allowing sanctions against foreign companies investing in Iran's energy sector.
Reauthorizing the Iran Nonproliferation Act to include sanctions against entities providing technology to the missile and weapons of mass destruction programs of both Iran and Syria.
Fostering U.S.-Israel homeland security cooperation by supporting the countries' efforts to sign a landmark Memorandum of Understanding and taking U.S. homeland security professionals on trips to Israel to meet with their Israeli counterparts.
Passing congressional resolutions that demonstrate overwhelming support for Israel's right to self-defense in the face of attacks by Hizballah and Hamas.
Designating Hizballah's TV station as a terrorist entity through legislative language as well as support of a letter to President Bush signed by 51 senators.
Passing the Syrian Accountability Act, which allows the president to sanction Syria for its continued involvement in Lebanon and support of terrorism.
Increasing military aid to Israel during the height of the Palestinian intifada by working for $1 billion in government grants that help cover the escalating costs of the war on terrorism.
Keeping world pressure on Hamas, by working to pass a House Resolution before PA elections that warned of serious policy implications for U.S.-Palestinian relations should Hamas be part of the Palestinian government.
Source: http://www.aipac. org/about_ AIPAC/default. asp
Quite impressive. Should anyone critical of Israel’s criminal behaviour quote this list, Foxman’s ADL would be quick to have him or her denounced as anti-Semitic.
Kris
http://www.counterp unch.org/zeese02082008.html
Weekend Edition
February 8 / 10, 2008
Is Dennis Kucinich Being McKinney'd?
Get Kucinich
By KEVIN ZEESE
On the Hill some call it being McKinney'd-- the treatment Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney received when she was in Congress. Twice, rather than protecting the incumbent, the Democrats put up well funded challengers against her. Now, it looks like Dennis Kucinich may be facing the same treatment in Cleveland.
There is a report circulating the web that before the Nevada primary Kucinich was visited by representatives of Nancy Pelosi and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the right wing Israeli lobby. They told him that if he would drop his campaigns to impeach Cheney and Bush, they would guarantee his re-election to the House of Representatives. Kucinich threw them out of his office.
Kucinich has aggressively challenged the Democratic Party leadership in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail on the issues of war, civil liberties, impeachment and big business control of government. He's even refused to pledge to endorse the party's presidential nominee.
The Democratic leadership has insisted that impeachment was off the table since taking control of the House in 2006. Congressman Conyers, Chair of the Judiciary Committee, has even refused to investigate whether President Bush and Vice President Cheney have violated the law. But Kucinich pushed the issue. He introduced articles of impeachment against Cheney, then against Bush and he brought the issue up on the House floor. He pushed and pushed to try to make sure the president and vice president were not above the law.
On the campaign trail he didn't let Senator Clinton or Obama get away with campaign peace rhetoric in the Democratic primary while they voted war funding with no strings attached in the senate. He pointed out that their rhetoric was not consistent with their actions. He pushed the issue of all troops being removed; while Obama and Clinton parse their words carefully making it clear they will withdraw only some of the troops and neither promising a complete troop withdrawal even by 2012.
And he pierced the veil of campaign rhetoric of Democrats who call for "universal health care" but put forward plans that will enrich their donors in the private health insurance industry.
On issue after issue Kucinich pushed against the Democratic Party leadership-- now, it seems he is paying a price.
In Cleveland, Kucinich is being challenged by several candidates. The one that is getting the most attention and funding is City Councilman Joe Cimperman. He's served on the council for ten years and has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars from real estate interests to challenge Kucinich. He's been saying that Kucinich focuses too much on campaigning for president and not on the district. The Mayor of Cleveland and the Cleveland Plain Dealer has endorsed Cimperman.
Kucinich, who has been focused on the presidential campaign, has very little money in the bank (reportedly only about $30,000). He's been putting out fundraising appeals (see, e.g., http://www.youtube. com/) and has a fundraiser planned with Sean Penn.
Back home the issue of right wing Israeli lobby funding is becoming an issue. Cimperman put out a press release that urges Kucinich to refute a report in the People's Weekly World Newspaper that said the "Kucinich campaign charged" that Cimperman's effort to unseat Kucinich was financed in large part from "a right-wing pro-Israel group."
Cimperman has been somewhat theatrical in his campaign. He's been putting up signs "Where's Dennis?" and describing him as a "Missing Congressman." Cimperman took the poster to Kucinch's office and delivered a copy on videotape. Kucinich responded by asking Homeland Security to investigate the filming of government property. Cimperman responded with another video calling Kucinch a hypocrite for violating his privacy while railing against government intrusion into people's lives.
No doubt if Kucinch had kow-towed to Nancy Pelosi, been less aggressive in his comments in the presidential debates and agreed to endorse the Democratic presidential nominee, the Democratic Party would be discouraging opponents and coming to the aid of an incumbent who has been in the House since 1996.
But elected officials like McKinney and Kucinch who challenge the Democratic Party line--who think for themselves and feel a responsibility to fight for their constituents and challenge corporate power--are a hindrance to the party leadership. They get in the way and let the public know what is really going on. So, they must be either tamed or made an example of. If Kucinich gets McKinney'd you can be sure the message will be received. Those, like Congressman Conyers, who've been around for awhile (Conyers has been in the House since 1965) know better than to step too far out of line. So, Conyers has remained silent on Bush's law breaking--protectin g his committee chairmanship by being afraid to use it. Conyers has been tamed but Kucinich hasn't. So, Kucinich needs to be taught a lesson that other members will learn from. The growing revolt of the "Out of Iraq Caucus" needs to be kept impotent. Knocking out Kucinich will prevent others from too loudly disobeying leadership.
Kucinich has faced tough battles in Cleveland before. When he was mayor he stood up to corporate interests that wanted to take over Cleveland's public utility and survived a recall election. And, Cimperman is not the only challenger, there are several, so the anti-Kucinich vote may be sufficiently divided for the congressman to retain his seat.
If he doesn't Kucinich may find new political opportunities that give him a bigger platform. Perhaps he will leave the Democratic Party with whom he has had so much disagreement and join Cynthia McKinney in the Green Party (see -a party whose platform is consistent with his. If so a McKinney-Kucinich ticket could be an interesting development in the 2008 election year. The Democrats may regret their punishment of both McKinney and Kucinich.
Kevin Zeese is Executive Director of Voters for Peace www.VotersForPeace. US. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 2:49 am Post subject: |
| http://www.counterpunch.org/ali02112008.html
February 11, 2008
A CounterPunch Exclusive
A Discussion with Walt and Mersheimer
The Power of the Israel Lobby
By WAJAHAT ALI
A lengthy interview conducted by an American of Pakistani origin who is described as "neither a terrorist nor a saint, a playwright, essayist and humorist". Well worth reading. Click on the link first above.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Israeli Lobby Declares War On Gandhi
By Punyapriya Dasgupta
12/02/08 "ICH" -- -- The problem the Israelis and their supporters have with Gandhi refuses to go away.. In what they call their pre-State era, they tried to get Mahatma Gandhi to endorse their campaign to dispossess the Arabs and transform Palestine into a Jewish homeland. He not only branded their enterprise unjust but even made comments which lend support to the Palestinian resistance that has been calumniated more recently by Israel and its American backers as terrorism. Today, the Israel lobby in America is baying for the blood of Arun Gandhi for his temerity in advising the Jews in Israel that it is time they got over their holocaust fixation and for their own secure future moved on to build peace and friendship with their neighbours.
Arun Gandhi, a grandson of the Mahatma, together with his wife Sunanda, founded the M.K.Gandhi Institute of Non-Violence in Memphis to spread the Gandhian philosophy in America and later made it a part of the University of Rochester. Early last month Arun Gandhi wrote in a Washington Post blog: "The Jewish identity in the past has been locked into the holocaust experience – a German burden that the Jews have not been able to shed. It is a very good example of a community that can overplay a historic experience to the point that it begins to repulse friends. The holocaust was the result of the warped mind of an individual who was able to influence his followers into something dreadful. But it seems to me that the Jews today not only want the Germans to feel guilty but the whole world must regret what happened to the Jews. The world did feel sorry for the episode but when an individual or a nation refuses to forgive and move on, the regret turns into anger. The Jewish identity in the future appears bleak. Any nation that remains anchored to the past is unable to move ahead and especially a nation that believes its survival can only be ensured by weapons and bombs. In Tel Aviv in 2004, I had the opportunity to speak to some MPs and peace activists all of whom argued that the wall and the military build up was necessary to protect the nation and the people. In other words, I asked, you believe that you can create a snake pit with many deadly snakes in it – and expect to live in the pit secure and alive? What do you mean? They countered. Well, with your superior weapons and your attitude towards your neighbours would it not be right to say you are creating a snake pit? Would it not be better to befriend those who hate you? Can you not reach out to share your technical advantage with your neighbours and build a relationship?"
This is vintage Gandhian logic about the means to an end. Arun Gandhi is a true inheritor of Gandhism except in such obsolete externals as the asceticism the Mahatma espoused in dress to identify himself with the poorest Indian nearly a century ago. When the Israel lobbyists turned on him for what they regard as sacrilege of the holocaust, Arun responded with more of Gandhism. He resigned from the presidentship of the institution of non-violence he had himself founded and issued an apology:
"My statement on the recent Washington Post blog was couched in language that was hurtful and contrary to the principle of non-violence.
My intention was to generate a healthy discussion on the proliferation of violence. Clearly I did not achieve my goal. Instead, unintentionally, my words have resulted in pain, anger, confusion and embarrassment. I deeply regret these consequences.
I would like to be a part of as healing process. The principles of non-violence are founded on love, respect, understanding and compassion. It is my sincere hope that this situation will give me and others the opportunity to work together and transform anger and negative emotions, create deeper mutual respect and understanding and build more harmonious communities."
The Zionist response was typical too. Not only was Arun Gandhi abused as soon as the blog appeared, even his apology was rejected as not enough or inconsequential. The Anti-Defamation League adjudged him guilty of a classic attempt at blaming the victim. Arun Gandhi was branded anti-Semite by the Israel lobbyists The director of the Simon Wiesenthal Institute seized it as a not-to-be lost opportunity to extend his sneer retrospectively to the Mahatma, a revered figure in world history. Efraim Zuroff was quoted by the Jerusalem Post as saying: "Even the great Mohandas Gandhi did not have a monopoly on wisdom, evidence his suggested passive resistance against the Nazis." Someone may take this cue and say that Arun Gandhi betrayed poor wisdom for he advised the Palestinians to defeat the Israelis with a massive non-violent march. John Mearsheimer who along with Stephen Walt wrote about the Israel lobby and faced its full fury, offered a consolation to Arun Gandhi with a comment that he would have gotten into serious trouble with the lobby even if he had chosen his words carefully "simply because he had criticized Israel and its American supporters, which one does at his or her own peril."
Sixty years after his death Mahatma Gandhi still remains a thorn on Zionism's side. His view, written in 1938, remains in indelible print and sharply relevant even now. "Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any code of conduct. The Mandates have no sanction but that of the last War. Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home. I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regarded as an unwarranted encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds." | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 3:29 pm Post subject: |
| Joe Biden: "I am a Zionist"
March 28, 2007
Presidential hopeful calls Israel "the single greatest strength America has in the Middle East"
Says Jonathan Pollard deserves leniency but not a pardon
In an exclusive Shalom TV interview, US Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-DE) emphatically stated his commitment to the State of Israel, calling the country "the single greatest strength America has in the Middle East."
Senator Biden further stressed that without Israel, one could only imagine how many battleships and troops America would have to station in the Middle East.
Meeting with Shalom TV President Rabbi Mark S. Golub in Washington, DC, the candidate for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination said that it's insulting for any American to suggest that Israel is somehow the cause of the war in Iraq.
"If, tomorrow, peace broke out between Israelis and Palestinians, does anybody think there wouldn't be a full-blown war in Iraq? And, conversely, if Iraq were transported to Mars, does anyone think there would not be terrorism visited upon the Israelis every day?
"So let's get it straight. Israel is not the cause of Iraq. Iraq being settled or not settled has nothing to do with Israel's conduct."
The Senator also expressed a sensitivity and empathy for Israelis who have had to live with terrorism.
"[From 9/11], Americans can taste what it must feel like for every Israeli mother and father when they send their kid out to school with their lunch to put them on a bus, on a bicycle or to walk; and they pray to God that cell phone doesn't ring."
"I am a Zionist," stated Senator Biden. "You don't have to be a Jew to be a Zionist."
Asked about Jonathan Pollard, sentenced to life-imprisonment for giving classified information to the State of Israel, Senator Biden opened the door to leniency, but not a pardon.
"There's a rationale, in my view, why Pollard should be given leniency. But there is not a rationale to say, 'What happened did not happen and should be pardoned.'"
[A transcript of the Shalom TV interview follows]
SHALOM TV: Many Americans believe there's a link between America's war in Iraq and the State of Israel and that if America didn't have such a commitment to the state of Israel, there wouldn't be these problems in Iraq.
What would you say to anyone who's expressed that thought to you?
SENATOR BIDEN: It's bizarre.
When the Baker Commission filed its report saying peace in Israel is related to Iraq, I was the first and only person in Congress to point out [that] if, tomorrow, peace broke out between Israelis and Palestinians, does anybody think there wouldn't be a full-blown war in Iraq?
And, conversely, if Iraq were transported to Mars, does anyone think there would not be terrorism visited upon the Israelis every day?
The difference between now and before 9/11: many Americans can taste what it must feel like for every Israeli mother and father when they send their kid out to school with their lunch to put them on a bus, on a bicycle or to walk; and they pray to God that cell phone doesn't ring.
Every day, every day.
So let's get it straight. Israel is not the cause of Iraq. Iraq being settled or not settled has nothing to do with Israel's conduct.
The second part is: people should understand by now that Israel is the single greatest strength America has in the Middle East.
Imagine our circumstance in the world were there no Israel. How many battleships would there be? How many troops would be stationed?
So I find it not only incorrect, but mildly insulting.
SHALOM TV: In the American Jewish community, there's sensitivity to the plight of Jonathan Pollard.
What should be done now with Jonathan Pollard?
SENATOR BIDEN: If we don't want to play into the argument that Americans who support Israel have dual loyalties, then you can't deal with Pollard. He has to serve his sentence. There's a rationale, in my view, why Pollard should be given leniency. But there is not a rationale to say, "What happened did not happen and should be pardoned."
I was raised by a righteous Christian. My father was a gentle man. He was a white collar worker, high-school educated but a student of history and a devoted supporter of Israel.
My father could not understand how people could [fail to understand] that without an Israel no Jew in the world was safe. He couldn't understand how support [for Israel] could be translated into being un-American.
My worry is that, if I were president, to go and pardon Pollard would make a lie out of the notion that there are certain rules. Period. You cannot give classified information. Period. Even to a friend. If this were great Britain, it would be the same thing.
So the standard has to be maintained, in my view.
SHALOM TV: Have you ever been at a Seder
SENATOR BIDEN: I have.
SHALOM TV: Give us one Seder memory
SENATOR BIDEN: My son married a young woman whose mother and whole family is a very prominent Jewish family in the state of Delaware, the Bergers.
Probably my most poignant Seder memory is not with the Bergers, but what happened right after I came back from meeting Golda Meir [in 1973].
I had predicted that something was going on in Egypt. And I remember people talking about what it meant to them if Israel were actually defeated.
And there is this inextricable tie between culture, religion, [and] ethnicity that most people don't fully understand--that is unique and so strong with Jews worldwide.
When I was a young Senator, I used to say, "If I were a Jew I'd be a Zionist."
I am a Zionist. You don't have to be a Jew to be a Zionist. | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
