| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 11:18 am Post subject: Finkelstein gives Israeli-American relations lecture |
| Finkelstein gives Israeli-American relations lecture
http://media.sundial.csun.edu/media/storage/paper862/news/2008/02/20/News/Finkelstein.Gives.IsraeliAmerican.Relations.Lecture-3221274.shtml
http://media.sundial.csun.edu/media/storage/paper862/news/2008/02/20/News/Finkelstein.Gives.IsraeliAmerican.Relations.Lecture-3221274.shtml?reffeature=recentlycommentedstoriestab
http://sundial.csun.edu/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticleComments&ustory_id=e01a5293-f08c-484d-a823-be364576293d
http://sundial.csun.edu/2.4503/1.407345
Cynthia Gomez
Issue date: 2/20/08 Section: News
Norman G. Finkelstein spoke at the Musical Recital Hall during his second speech at CSUN, titled, "The Coming Break-up of American Zionism," which was attended by about 30 people on Feb. 13.
[Click to enlarge]
Media Credit: Mildred Martin / Staff Photographer
[Click to enlarge]
In a series of lectures last week, Norman Finkelstein, a noted political scholar and a former professor at DePaul University of Chicago, presented a lecture titled, "A Critique on the Walt-Mearsheimer Thesis," which focuses on the "core" thesis of a work that touches on Israeli lobby ties with American foreign policy.
"His case shows the difficulty of making wise decisions about teachers and students who work in political areas of scholarship," said Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs Harry Hellenbrand, who invited Finkelstein to speak at CSUN.
The thesis comes from a working paper titled, "The Israel Lobby," written by John Mearsheimer, a professor from the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt, a professor from Harvard University.
Finkelstein explained why he only focused on the thesis of the paper. "I wanted to avoid all of the nuances because I think a lot of the nuances are not really nuances, but efforts to detect themselves in the politically correct environment," Finkelstein said. He later explained why he does not support the thesis.
"I should be supporting (it), but the (fact of) the matter is, I don't determine my allegiances by ethnicities," he said. "I determine my allegiances by where the facts take me and in looking through the (working paper) and reading it very carefully, I simply was not convinced by the core thesis."
Finkelstein explained the argument both Mearsheimer and Walt have discussed in the thesis.
"The thrust of their argument was there is this powerful lobby in the United States," he said. "It is, they called it, the Israel lobby, but that in itself is an euphemism of sorts because clearly they believe the core of that lobby is American Jews or some American Jews. There qualification is important…they're promoting Israel's agenda."
Finkelstein said promoting Israel's agenda is "half of the problem," but the other half of the problem is that Israel's agenda is contrary to the best interest of the United States…so in promoting Israel's agenda, they are effectively underlying what they call U.S. national interests in the world."
The first argument that Finkelstein focused on was of the beginning of the main thesis made by Mearsheimer and Walt, which is "U.S. support of Israel does not serve U.S. national interest."
"They say that Israel was a strategic asset for the United States during the Cold War," he said stating that he was using Mearsheimer's and Walt's words and not his own. "Mainly it acted as a check on soviet expansion in the Middle East."
Finkelstein said he disagreed with Mearsheimer's and Walt's argument because it is "not what Israel's utility was to the U.S." He added that the main concern of the U.S. in the Middle East was anti-western nationalism and not soviet expansion. "That is, the U.S. was fearful that an independent autonomous power may emerge in the Middle East that will threat its strategic interests, most notable, oil," Finkelstein said.
"Secondly, Israel offers advantages to the west or to the U.S. which cannot be duplicated anywhere else in the Middle East," Finkelstein said. "You often hear the argument, 'Why is the United States investing so much in Israel and alienating the Arab regimes?' Doesn't it make much more sense for the United States to work with the neighboring Arab countries rather than work with Israel, from the point of view of our national interest?"
Finkelstein said the problem behind Mearsheimer's and Walt's argument is that it "completely misunderstands the special utility and the special value of Israel."
"Israel's special value for the U.S., which can't be duplicated anywhere in the Middle East is that fundamentally, Israel was a creation of the Western world," he said. He added that since 1967 Israel has been culturally, economically and politically in parole to the United States. "Unlike anywhere else in the Arab world, where you may have a regime which is committed to the U.S., you don't have populations committed to the U.S. and therefore the support of those countries can disappear overnight," Finkelstein said.
The political scholar disagreed with Mearsheimer's and Walt's claim that the "U.S. allies with Israel."
"Now to demonstrate that the U.S. allies with Israel distorts the American national interest, which is what Mearsheimer and Walt claim," Finkelstein said. "You have to show that U.S. policy in the Arab world would be different were it not for Israel. That seems to me an obvious requirement."
"If you're claiming that Israel is distorting U.S. policy in the Middle East then you would have to show that whether or not for Israel, U.S. policy would be fundamentally different," Finkelstein said, "but if you look at the historical record, there's just no evidence for that."
Finkelstein said he disagreed with Mearsheimer's and Walt's claim that "the U.S. supports Israel despite its powerful impact due to the Israel lobby."
"As I've already said, fundamentally I think that's mistaken," he said. "The U.S. supports Israel when it's useful to U.S. fundamental interests. However, and here I have to be a little bit more settle in the argument because that's what the evidence requires, I do think it's the case that the U.S. supports Israeli policy in the occupied territories due to the lobby."
Finkelstein clarified his statement, saying, "When it comes to broad regional fundamental interests, Iraq, Iran, South Arabia oil, it is U.S. national interests that take priority," he said. "When it comes to a local question like Israel and occupied territories, there I think it is a true that it's the lobby that is destroying U.S. policy because the obvious question you would ask yourself is, I think, 'What does the U.S. stand to gain from the settlements that Israel is building?' The answer quite obviously is nothing."
Later in the lecture, Finkelstein argued Mearsheimer's and Walt's claim that the Israel lobby was the "driving force behind the Iraq War." "The main architects of the war are always said to be Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Cheney," Finkelstein said. "Well everyone in this room knows Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Cheney are not Jewish and they don't fit the profile of these Jewish neoconservatives. So how do Mearsheimer and Walt reconcile? (Rumsfeld and Cheney) are obviously not Jewish neoconservatives, and yet you say it was the Jewish neoconservatives who caused the war?"
A question-and-answer session followed after Finkelstein's lecture. James Morris, 44, said he agreed and disagreed with Finkelstein's arguments.
"I think some of his arguments about the Palestinian situation and the lobbying influencing what happens in occupied territories are accurate," Morris said, "but then again if he uses the same argument with the lobby and how it influences our policy and occupied territories. And about that time the attack on the USS Liberty happened and that's been covered up ever since."
"Also, you had 9/11 that happened," Morris said. "If you look at the paperwork that's out there and the scholarly publications…our support of Israel resulted not only the attack on the World Trade Center in '93 but in 9/11. So that's not in our national interest. So when he's trying to say that we can't define that term, it's not in our national interest, right? So supporting Israel...was a direct result for the plotters of those attacks."
Morris commented on Finkelstein's arguments about Jewish neoconservatives. He wanted to rebut Finkelstein's argument that Rumsfeld and Cheney were supposedly not part of the neoconservative moment, said Morris.
"They've been associated with it for years," he said.
Morris said he was upset because he was "cut off" while asking a question to Finkelstein.
"I have a great deal of respect for Provost Hellenbrand, how he hosted this event, but he cut me off when I was trying to make my points to rebut," Morris said. "I didn't get a chance to finish my question. He cut me off. He said let's take one point at a time. I was cut off and I never came back to be able to make the rest of the question."
Mujahidul Haque, a political science major, said the lecture was informative to him and that some of Finkelstein's arguments caught his attention.
"What he said pretty much about the Jewish neoconservatives," Haque said, "I think all the neoconservatives are pretty much the same. I don't think I would want to separate the Jewish and Christian neoconservatives (from each other). The all have the same agenda. Other than that, I pretty much agreed with everything else he said."
Page 1 of 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein, a Victim of the Israel Lobby, Denies That It Has Power
http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/02/last-fall-norma.html
Yes, There Is a Guerrilla War Against Zionism in the U.S. What Should Jewish Institutions Do?
http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/02/portrait-of-a-h.html
If you do a search for 'Mearsheimer' in the search field at CBSNEWS.COM, the following article that Phil Weiss wrote for 'The Nation' about Mearsheimer/Walt appears as the only reference::
Ferment Over The 'Israel Lobby':
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/28/opinion/main1560594.shtml?source=search_story
Additional on Mearsheimer/Walt:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/03/17/u-s-middle-east-policy-motivated-by-pro-israel-lobby.php
Video that gets to the Israel question:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg
Additional at the following URL:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/08/05/the-gorilla-in-the-room-is-us-support-for-israel.php
Ron Paul supporters on the street out in front of the Reagan Library in Simi Valley (California) during the Republican debate:
Ron Paul supporters in front of the Reagan Library (additional pics via this URL as well)
http://s261.photobucket.com/albums/ii43/aPaulstle/?action=view¤t=Reagan.jpg
Here is a tiny URL for the above one:
http://tinyurl.com/2hpz4p
VIDEO: A Clean Break and A Pretext for War, read James Bamford (Ron Paul mentioned):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNN9cMvnHdc
http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2008/02/clean-break.html
http://www.tinyurl.com/2mnptm
Neocon Zionist Threat to America:
http://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.BLOGSPOT.COM
http://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.BLOGSPOT.COM
Last edited by Alpha on Sun Sep 28, 2008 5:49 am; edited 5 times in total | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 3:01 am Post subject: Email response to Finkelstein by Colin Powell's assistant |
| Forwarded:
Email response to Finkelstein by Colin Powell's former assistant (Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson):
> From: Lawrence Wilkerson
> Subject: Re: Don't Miss 2 back to back Events with Israel first
> Congressmen Berman and Sherman Tonight
> To: "James Morris" > >
> Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 07:30:54 -0500 (EST)
>
> Finkelstein is dead wrong on one thing in particular, i.e., that the US
> focus in the ME was on nationalism rather than the Soviets. I did not
> spend my time as an Army strategist and planner on nationalistic
> movements; I spent it on the Soviet hordes coming down through Iran
> to Bandar
> Abbas and environs. In fact, I did not spend a second on nationalism.
> lw
>
> ---- Original message ----
>
> >Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 03:15:37 -0800 (PST)
> >From: James Morris > >
> >Subject: Re: Don't Miss 2 back to back Events with Israel first
> Congressmen Berman and Sherman Tonight
>
> >To: Tom Hayden
> >
> > Mr. Hayden (Tom),
> >
> > Just wanted to thank you for writing that article
> > (linked below in the prior email) which enabled me
> > to at least get the Mearsheimer/Walt book mentioned
> > by Congressman Berman earlier tonight (a youtube is
> > being made of my question/comment and his
> > disingenuous response) at a talk that he gave
> > in Sherman Oaks in the San Fernando Valley. It was
> > mentioned that he is going to replace Tom Lantos as
> > the chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs
> > (as I am sure that AIPAC is very happy with such!).
> >
> > I was in touch with Jeff Blankfort and would read
> > the emails that he would send you in which he
> > repeatedly criticized you for not speaking out about
> > what Israel was doing in Lebanon, but you made
> > amends (from my perspective at least) by writing
> > that piece which gave me the much needed additional
> > background on Berman and thus motivated me to be
> > there to stick it to him the best that I
> > could tonight...
> >
> > You might be interested in the article (linked via
> > the following URL) which appeared in the CSUN 'Daily
> > Sundial' yesterday:
> >
> > Finkelstein gives Israeli-American relations lecture
> >
> > http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2008/02/20/finkelstein-gives-israeli-american-relations-lecture.php
> >
> > You might also be interested in what is referenced
> > at the following URL as well:
> >
> > "Dying for a Second Round." Israel Said to Plan
> > Attack on Lebanon:
> >
> > http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2008/02/14/war-with-iran-real-risk-according-to-former-cia-operative-page-61.php
> >
> > A very valued contact/friend with the anti-war
> > movement in the UK just sent me the following:
> >
> > How (UK) Labour government used the law to keep
> > criticism of Israel secret
> > Concern over nuclear arsenal removed from Iraq
> > dossier
> > The UK Foreign Office successfully fought to keep
> > secret any mention of Israel contained on the first
> > draft of the controversial, now discredited Iraq
> > weapons dossier. At the heart of it was nervousness
> > at the top of government about any mention of
> > Israel's nuclear arsenal in an official paper
> > accusing Iraq of flouting the UN's authority on
> > weapons of mass destruction.
> >
> >
> >
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/21/israelandthepalestinians.iraq
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Latest C-SPAN calls are linked (via the pictures)
> > at both pages of the following URL:
> >
> > http://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.BLOGSPOT.COM
>
> >
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > James Morris
> >
> >
> > James Morris > > wrote:
> >
> > Anyone care to show some Ron Paul support at
> > either of these events tonight (read about Berman
> > and his brother's loyalty to Israel in the
> > following article by Tom Hayden who was influenced
> > by the Mearsheimer/Walt paper (and book - see
> > www.israellobbybook.com ) after
> they both were
> > published:
> >
> >
> > Tom Hayden: Things Come 'Round in Mideast
> >
> >
>
> http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060718_tom_hayden_things_come_round/
> >
> > Additional about Mearsheimer/Walt at the following
> > URL:
> >
> >
> > http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/03/17/u-s-middle-east-policy-motivated-by-pro-israel-lobby.php
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Steve Fine" > >
> > To: "Steve Fine" > >
> > Subject: [Neighborsteve] Don't Miss 2 back to
> > back Events with Congressmen Berman and Sherman
> > - elections and Your Issues
> > Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 20:04:18 -0800
> >
> >
> > Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 20:04:18 -0800
> > Subject: [Neighborsteve] Don't Miss 2 back to
> > back Events with Congressmen
> > Berman and Sherman - elections and Your Issues
> >
> > The Democratic Party of the San Fernando Valley
> > invites you to join
> > Congressman Brad Sherman
> > and special guest
> > Governor Michael Dukakis
> > for a conversation regarding the 2008 election
> > Wednesday, February 20, 2008
> > 5:30pm - 7:00pm
> > Dixie Canyon Elementary School
> > 4220 Dixie Canyon Avenue, Sherman Oaks
> >(Street parking available or use the school parking lot--
> >turn right on the first alley north of Ventura Boulevard)
> > **Admission is free. Refreshments will be
> > provided**
> >
> > AND
> >
> > SHERMAN OAKS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
> > Community Meeting with U.S. Congressman Howard
> > Berman
> > Wednesday, February 20, 7:15 p.m.
> > Sunkist Building
> > 14130 Riverside Drive,
> > Sherman Oaks.
> > U.S. Congressman Howard Berman who represents Sherman
> > Oaks will be our speaker on Wednesday evening, February
> > 20, 2008.
> > He will discuss the Middle East, the U.S. economy and
> > funding for
> > transit projects in the Los Angeles area. Learn what is
> > happening
> > in Washington, D.C. and let him know what issues are
> > important to you.
> >
> > The Meeting starts at 7:15 p.m. and the Social Hour at
> > 6:15 p.m. at the Sunkist Building located at 14130
> > Riverside Drive,
> > Sherman Oaks.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Neighborsteve mailing list
> > http://mylist.net/listinfo/neighborsteve | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 10:55 am Post subject: |
| Congressman Howard Berman on Israel and the pro-Israel lobby:
This Israel firster is replacing Tom Lantos as the chair of House Committee on Foreign Affairs as I am sure that AIPAC is very happy with such!:
Congressman Howard Berman on Israel and the pro-Israel lobby (Wednesday, February 20th, 2008):
:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6-BGY7X1ro
Such US support of Israel is what got US tragically attacked at the World Trade Center in 1993 and on 9/11:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/08/05/the-gorilla-in-the-room-is-us-support-for-israel.php
Additional about Mearsheimer/Walt at the following URL:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/03/17/u-s-middle-east-policy-motivated-by-pro-israel-lobby.php
http://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.BLOGSPOT.COM
Look what Tom Hayden wrote about Berman and his brother after the Mearsheimer/Walt paper came out:
Tom Hayden: Things Come ’Round in Mideast:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060718_tom_hayden_things_come_round/
Posted on Jul 18, 2006
By Tom Hayden
Editor’s note: In this essay, veteran social activist Tom Hayden, drawing upon his own rude political awakening to the realities of Israeli and Middle East politics during the 1980s, warns that the Israel lobby in the U.S. aims to “roll back the clock” and “change the map” of the region and that its neoconservative supporters will probably try to use the current Middle East crisis to ignite a larger war against Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Twenty-five years ago I stared into the eyes of Michael Berman, chief operative for his congressman-brother, Howard Berman. I was a neophyte running for the California Assembly in a district that the Bermans claimed belonged to them.
“I represent the Israeli defense forces,” Michael said. I thought he was joking. He wasn’t. Michael seemed to imagine himself the gatekeeper protecting Los Angeles’ Westside for Israel’s political interests, and those of the famous Berman-Waxman machine. Since Jews represented one-third of the Democratic district’s primary voters, Berman held a balance of power.
All that year I tried to navigate the district’s Jewish politics. The solid historical liberalism of the Westside was a favorable factor, as was the strong support of many Jewish community leaders. But the community was moving in a more conservative direction. Some were infuriated at my sponsorship of Santa Monica’s tough rent control ordinance. Many in the organized community were suspicious of the New Left for becoming Palestinian sympathizers after the Six Day War; they would become today’s neoconservatives.
I had traveled to Israel in a generally supportive capacity, meeting officials from all parties, studying energy projects, befriending peace advocates like the writer Amos Oz. I also met with Palestinians and commented favorably on the works of Edward Said. As a result, a Berman ally prepared an anti-Hayden dossier in an attempt to discredit my candidacy with the Democratic leadership in the California state capital.
This led to the deli lunch with Michael Berman. He and his brother were privately leaning toward an upcoming young prosecutor named Adam Schiff, who later became the congressman from Pasadena. But they calculated that Schiff couldn’t win without name recognition, so they were considering “renting” me the Assembly seat, Berman said. But there was one condition: that I always be a “good friend of Israel.”
This wasn’t a particular problem at the time. Since the 1970s I had favored some sort of two-state solution. I felt close to the local Jewish activists who descended from the labor movement and participated in the civil rights and anti-Vietnam movements. I wanted to take up the cause of the aging Holocaust survivors against the global insurance companies that had plundered their assets.
While I believed the Palestinians had a right to self-determination, I didn’t share the animus of some on the American left who questioned Israel’s very legitimacy. I was more inclined toward the politics of Israel’s Peace Now and those Palestinian nationalists and human rights activists who accepted Israel’s pre-1967 borders as a reality to accommodate. I disliked the apocalyptic visions of the Israeli settlers I had met, and thought that even hard-line Palestinians would grudgingly accept a genuine peace initiative.
I can offer my real-life experience to the present discussion about the existence and power of an “Israel lobby.” It is not as monolithic as some argue, but it is far more than just another interest group in a pluralist political world. In recognizing its diversity, distinctions must be drawn between voters and elites, between Reform and Orthodox tendencies, between the less observant and the more observant. During my ultimate 18 years in office, I received most of my Jewish support from the ranks of the liberal and less observant voters. But I also received support from conservative Jews who saw themselves as excluded by a Jewish (and Democratic) establishment.
However, all these rank-and-file constituencies were attuned to the question of Israel, even in local and state elections, and would never vote for a candidate perceived as anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian. I had to be certified “kosher,” not once but over and over again.
The certifiers were the elites, beginning with rabbis and heads of the multiple mainstream Jewish organizations, especially each city’s Jewish Federation. An important vetting role was held as well by the American-Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC), a group closely associated with official parties in Israel. When necessary, Israeli ambassadors, counsels general and other officials would intervene with statements declaring someone a “friend of Israel.”
In my case, a key to the “friendship issue” was the Los Angeles-based counsel general Benjamin Navon. Though politics drew us together, our personal friendship was genuine enough. I think that Benny, as he was called, wanted to pull me and my then-wife, Jane Fonda, into a pro-Israel stance, but he himself was an old-school labor/social democrat who personally believed in a negotiated political settlement. We enjoyed personal and intellectual time together, and I still keep on my bookshelf a wooden sculpture by his wife, of an anguished victim of violence.
The de facto Israeli endorsement would be communicated indirectly, in compliance with laws that prohibit foreign interference in an American election. We would be seen and photographed together in public. Benny would make positive public statements that could be quoted in campaign mailings. As a result, I was being declared “kosher” by the ultimate source, the region’s representative of the state of Israel.
Nevertheless, throughout the spring 1982 campaign I was accused of being a left-wing madman allied to terrorism and communism. The national Democratic leader Walter Mondale commented jokingly during a local visit that I was being described as worse than Lenin. It was a wild ride.
I won the hard-fought primary by 51% to 45%. The Bermans stayed neutral. Willie Brown, Richard Alatorre and the rest of the California Democratic establishment were quietly supportive. I easily won the general election in November.
But that summer I made the mistake of my political career. The Israel Defense Forces invaded Lebanon, and Benny Navon wanted Jane and me to be supportive. It happened that I had visited the contested border in the past, witnessed the shelling of civilian Israeli homes, and interviewed Israeli and Lebanese zealots—crazies, I thought, who were preaching preventive war. I opposed cross-border rocket attacks and naively favored a demilitarized zone.
Ever curious, and aware of my district’s politics, I decided we should go to the Middle East—but only as long as the Israeli “incursion,” as it was delicately called, was limited to the 10-kilometer space near the Lebanese border, as a cushion against rocket fire. Benny Navon assured me that the “incursion” was limited, and would be followed by negotiations and a solution. I also made clear our opposition to the use of any fragmentation bombs in the area, and my ultimate political identification with what Israeli Peace Now would say.
There followed a descent into moral ambiguity and realpolitick that still haunts me today. When we arrived at the Israeli-Lebanon border, the game plan promised by Benny Navon had changed utterly. Instead of a localized border conflict, Israel was invading and occupying all of Lebanon—with us in tow. Its purpose was to destroy militarily the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) haven in Lebanon. This had been Gen. Ariel Sharon’s secret plan all along, and I never will know with certainty whether Benny Navon had been deceived along with everyone else.
For the next few weeks, I found myself defending Israel’s “right” to self-defense on its border, only to realize privately how foolish I was becoming. In the meantime, Israel’s invasion was continuing, with ardent Jewish support in America.
Finally, a close friend and political advisor of mine, Ralph Brave, took me for a walk, looked into my eyes and said: “Tom, you can’t do this. You have to stop.” He was right, and I did. In the California Legislature, I went to work on Holocaust survivor issues while withdrawing from the bind of Israeli-Palestinian politics. When the first Palestinian intifada began, I sensed from experience that the balance of forces had changed, and that the Israeli occupation was finished. Frictions developed between me and some of my Israeli and Jewish friends when I suggested that Israel must make a peace deal immediately or accept a worse deal later.
It is still painful and embarrassing to describe these events of nearly 25 years ago, but with Israel today again bombing Lebanon and Israeli officials bragging about “rolling back the clock by twenty years” and reconfiguring the Middle East, I feel obliged to speak out against history repeating.
How do I read today’s news through the lens of the past?
What I fear is that the “Israeli lobby” is working overtime to influence American public opinion on behalf of Israel’s military effort to “roll back the clock” and “change the map” of the region, going far beyond issues like prisoner exchange.
What I fear is that the progress of the American peace movement against the Iraq war will be diverted and undermined, at least for now, by the entry of Israel from the sidelines into the center of the equation.
What I fear is the rehabilitation of the discredited U.S. neoconservative agenda to ignite a larger war against Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran. The neoconservatives’ 1996 “Clean Break” memo advocated that Israel “roll back” Lebanon and destabilize Syria in addition to overthrowing Saddam Hussein. An intellectual dean of the neoconservatives, Bernard Lewis, has long advocated the “Lebanonization” of the Middle East, meaning the disintegration of nation states into “a chaos of squabbling, feuding, fighting sects, tribes, regions and parties.”
This divide-and-conquer strategy, a brainchild of the region’s British colonizers, is already taking effect in Iraq, where America overthrew a secular state, installed a Shiite majority and its militias in power and now portrays itself as the only protection for Sunnis against those same Shiites. The resulting quagmire has become a justification for American troops to remain.
What I fear is trepidation and confusion among rank-and-file voters and activists, and the paralysis of politicians, especially Democrats, who last week were moving gradually toward setting a deadline for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. The politics of the present crisis favor the Republicans and the White House in the short run. How many politicians will favor withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq under present conditions? Isn’t this Karl Rove’s game plan for the November elections?
What I know is that I will not make the same mistake again. I hope that my story deepens the resolve of all those whose feelings are torn, conflicted or confused in the present. It is not being a “friend of Israel” to turn a blind eye to its never-ending occupation.
One might argue, and many Americans today might agree, that Hezbollah and Hamas started this round of war with their provocative kidnappings of Israeli soldiers. Lost in the headlines, however, is the fact that the Israelis have 9,000 Palestinian prisoners, and have negotiated prisoner swaps before. Others will blame the Islamists for incessant rocket attacks on Israel. But the roots of this virulent spiral of vengeance lie in the permanent occupation of Palestinian territories by the overconfident Israelis. As it did in 1982, Israel now admits that the war is not about prisoner exchanges or cease-fires; it is about eradicating Hezbollah and Hamas altogether, if necessary by an escalation against Syria or even Iran. It should be clear by now that the present Israeli government will never accept an independent Palestinian state, but rather harbors a colonial ambition to decide which Palestinian leaders are acceptable.
In 1982, Israel said the same thing about eliminating PLO sanctuaries in Lebanon. It was after that 1982 Israeli invasion that Hezbollah was born. I remember Israeli national security experts even taking credit for fostering Hamas and Islamic fundamentalism as safe, reclusive alternatives to Palestinian secular nationalism. I remember watching Israeli soldiers blow up Palestinian houses and carry out collective punishment because, they told me matter-of-factly, punishment is the only language that Arabs understand. Israelis are inflicting collective punishment on Lebanese civilians for the same reason today.
It is clear that apocalyptic forces, openly green-lighted by President Bush, are gambling on the impossible. They are trying to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat in Iraq through escalation in Lebanon and beyond. This is yet another faith-based initiative.
If the American people do not see through the headlines; if the Democrats turn hawkish; if the international community fails to intervene immediately, the peace movement may be sidelined to a prophetic and marginal role for the moment. But we can say the following for now:
Militarism and occupation cannot extinguish the force of Islamic nationalism. Billions in American tax dollars are funding the Israeli troops and bombs.
There needs to be an exit strategy. The absence of any such exit plan is the weakest element of the U.S.-Israeli campaign. Just as the White House says it plans to deploy 50,000 troops on permanent bases in an occupied Iraq, so the Israelis speak of permanently eliminating their enemies, from Gaza to Tehran. The result will be further occupation, resistance and deeper quagmire.
The immediate conflict should not become a pretext for continuing the U.S. military occupation of Iraq. American soldiers should not be stuck waist-deep in a sectarian quagmire. Congressional insistence on denying funds for permanent military bases is a vital first step. Otherwise we will witness a tacit alliance between Israel and the U.S. to dominate the Middle East militarily.
Most important, Americans must not be timid in speaking up, as I was 25 years ago. Silence is consent to occupation
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
