Israel and the U.S. — does the tail wag the dog?

[tradeunionsupporter]

Israel and the U.S. — does the tail wag the dog?

Adrienne Weller


volume:
volume 30


issue 2


April 2009

http://www.socialism.com/drupal-6.8/?q=node/309

Good photo on this link therefor I could be wrong about the Israel Lobby running United States Foreign Policy what is your view of this article ?

[#FF0000]

the Israel Lobby running United States Foreign Policy

No.

[l'Enfermé]

The assessment is correct, but it's dated. Real support for Israel by the US only began during the 60s, or more specifically, because the Americans understood that Israel could be an excellent tool that they can use to promote their interests in the world's most oil-rich region, the Middle East, after the Israeli victory in the 1967 War, and from then on Israel became basically the world's biggest American military base(the author of the article mentions an analogy that compared Israel to an aircraft carrier, this is a good one also).

But, and I've wrote this in another thread today, American support for Israel is steadily becoming harmful to US strategic goals(mostly because the Soviets don't exist now, their influence in the ME is gone) and at this point the main factor that keeps the US supporting Israel so much is the Zionist-Christian lobbies and organizations in the US.

[Grenzer]

I think it's key to avoid overstating Israel's influence. As Borz identified, it has a lot to with the massive Zionist and Evangelical lobbies, but if Israel's interests ever conflicted fundamentally with that of the United State's, or with a significant portion of the population Israel would be dropped cold.

Of course from a strategic point of view, adopting Israel was a terrible move on the US's part. Truman's cabinet was solidly against recognizing Israel, but he ended up deciding to do it anyway. Now the alliance has been on so long that the enemies have been made; backing away form the alliance wouldn't do much good for the American bourgeoisie.

I think this is a good example of the frequent irrationality of the American bourgeoisie, which will play into our interests in the long run. They seem to be drunk on their own success and have been extremely arrogant in certain regards, such as pushing neo-liberalism as far as they can go by taking advantage of the very low level of class consciousness. Unfortunately for them, this combined with the inflexibility of the state apparatus to enact reforms creates very favorable conditions for advancing class struggle in the long run(over decades).

[Rafiq]

Foreign policy in regards to Israel is a mere fraction of the overall Foreign policy upheld by the United States.

Israel, of course, is a mere colony of the United States. It does to some extent have it's own "interests", I suppose much like South Korea.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think that the perceived threat of international terrorism gave a new impetus for American support for Israel, in the wake of the USSR's fall.

[gorillafuck]

Israel straddles the line between being an American satellite in the middle east and having it's own independent interests that can conflict with that of the US (in that there are times when Israel wants to be much more aggressive for the sake of Israeli interests than America will allow it to be for the sake of American interests)

[Prometeo liberado]

By no means are the Israelis simply yes men to American foreign policy. It's a pretty unique situation in that the American pro-zionist voice is so diverse and have consistently deep pockets. You got the evangelical right, the reactionary anti-Palestinian right, the liberal-zionist jew, almost any liberal and so on. It crosses party lines. So much so that at the end of the day Israel can call the shots, not the other way around.

[#FF0000]

Russia is still a p. major rival in the Middle East, even if it's not the USSR anymore

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Incorrect jbeard. The Aipac lobby gets a lot of media attention because its jewish and humanity still feels the need to satisfy old stereotypes. There are a lot of foreign lobby groups in the US that definitely give tons of money to the US like AIPAC. These groups though do not have more power or importance than US Capital which control the US market sector of the economy known as 'Washington'. Here is a good video that talks exactly about this question we have here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4mgOc8jsq4

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Here is another video 'Noam Chomsky: The United States - Israel's Godfather'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30X2tYUGK_8

[9]

Israel, of course, is a mere colony of the United States. It does to some extent have it's own "interests", I suppose much like South Korea.

This is really not the case at all, actually.

[eyeheartlenin]

Concerning the video of Chomsky speaking at UCLA, about AIPAC, the Israel Lobby and whether it is powerful or not, two points:

(1) As he does in the video shot at UCLA, Chomsky has repeatedly decried the "moral degeneration of Israel," by which, I guess, Chomsky is referring to Israeli expansionism, since, it would appear, Chomsky is afraid that Israel will, as he indicates in the video, ultimately be destroyed.

It is hard for me to understand how Israel could degenerate morally very much, given that Israel exists as a result of the Palestinians having had their own country stolen from under their feet. The condition of Zionist settlement of "Israel" was the Palestinians being driven from the land of their birth. Surely that expulsion and that dispossession, of the Palestinian people, means that Israel began with an immense act of injustice against an indigenous population, the Palestinians, in the interests of settlers from Europe. How could Israel degenerate very much, after such a beginning? Does the expulsion of the Palestinians mean that Israel had any moral capital, to begin with?

(2) As far as Chomsky's estimating that the Israel lobby in the US does not really have very much power, all I know is that no one in the state I live in, can get our representatives in the US Congress even to discuss the question of Israel's unjust acts against the Palestinians, because any criticism of Israel by someone in the US Congress, will lead to that politician's defeat at the hands of a pro-Israel opponent, as has already happened. It sure looks to me like the Israel lobby has the US Congress just where the Israelis want them, voting immense amounts of money to Israel every year. That a lobby on behalf of any foreign power enjoys that kind of influence in the US Congress is very unfortunate, I think.

The final thing to be said is, I guess, obvious, namely that Chomsky comes across in the video as someone who is genuinely pro-Israel, a Zionist, in other words, which makes Chomsky not only a phony anarchist, but a phony leftist.

[Franz Fanonipants]

chomsky is terrible

hey is finkelstein a leftist i had heard something to that effect but

[eyeheartlenin]

chomsky is terrible
hey is finkelstein a leftist i had heard something to that effect but

I don't think so. He said the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement has "extreme views," so I think his disconnection from Zionism is kind of partial, but he is a fearless, independent thinker, which is awfully impressive.

* * *

From wikipedia.org:

"In February 2012, Finkelstein 'launched a blistering attack' of the BDS movement, saying it was a 'hypocritical, dishonest cult' that tries to cleverly pose as human rights activists while in reality their goal is to destroy Israel. In addition, he said: 'I'm getting a little bit exasperated with what I think is a whole lot of nonsense. I'm not going to tolerate silliness, childishness and a lot of leftist posturing. I loathe the disingenuousness. We will never hear the solidarity movement [back a] two-state solution.' Furthermore, Finkelstein stated that the BDS movement has had very few successes, and that just like a cult, the leaders pretend that they are hugely successful when in reality the general public rejects their extreme views."

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

The final thing to be said is, I guess, obvious, namely that Chomsky comes across in the video as someone who is genuinely pro-Israel, a Zionist, in other words, which makes Chomsky not only a phony anarchist, but a phony leftist.

LOL, Chomsky is definitely not a Zionist. Far from it, he writes a lot about the 2009 slaughter of Palestinians, nuclear weapons of Israel, he makes arguments against the hysteria against Iran supposedly having nuclear weapons - (which a Zionist would never do, he even says it would not matter if Iran even had nuclear weapons, he states "ok, so let's assume i had nuclear weapons in my garage and no one knew about it. What good would that do me? I would either want to use it as a determent against invasion or as a threat" he also says it wouldnt matter if Iran had them, it "would be suicide" as Israel has 200 nukes) - and he writes that Israel gets 2/3 of its water from the occupied territories. Chomsky is an anarchist, he gives talks to anarchist crowds regularly and is very admired within these. I recommend reading his book "Hegemony or Survival; America's Quest for Global Dominance" in which he among other things, quotes high ranking white house officials from official documents that "There cannot be peace [...] until the US' controls the Middle East". Basically, Chomsky explains how the US supported Suharto who ended up killing hundreds of thousands of East Timorese, and exposes the US main media during that same time for focusing on the "Khmer Rouge", which as he says, the US supported with $80 million. "It's alright when we're doing it, but it's not alright when their doing it". Chomsky is very much an Ultra-Leftist although he acts like a liberal. What he says and writes is more important than his (I admit, very obnoxious and quite slimy) way.

[9]

chomsky is terrible

hey is finkelstein a leftist i had heard something to that effect but
I actually feel like I remember reading somewhere that Finkelstein was some sort of Maoist at one point. personally I have a big problem with the whole idea of BDS, as I think it is a liberal campaign that has nothing to do with communist politics, but it seems like the sort of thing that would be right up Finkelsteins alley, so I'm actually really surprised to read that quote that eyeheartlenin provided.

But either way, he has written some interesting stuff. I have been contemplating whether or not to buy 'The Holocaust Industry' for my mother for her upcoming birthday, but I am slightly scared of what her reaction might be. :lol:

[RGacky3]

The Isreali lobby would be nothing it if it did'nt have the backing of the military industrial complex, thats whats really pushing this, so much money is made keeping comflict going in the middle east and Israel creates HUGE demand for arms.

Its not about the US and Israels relationship, the US government bends to pressure, and that pressure comes from the military industrial complex wihch demands full support and almost subservience to Israel.

[l'Enfermé]

Concerning the video of Chomsky speaking at UCLA, about AIPAC, the Israel Lobby and whether it is powerful or not, two points:

(1) As he does in the video shot at UCLA, Chomsky has repeatedly decried the "moral degeneration of Israel," by which, I guess, Chomsky is referring to Israeli expansionism, since, it would appear, Chomsky is afraid that Israel will, as he indicates in the video, ultimately be destroyed.

It is hard for me to understand how Israel could degenerate morally very much, given that Israel exists as a result of the Palestinians having had their own country stolen from under their feet. The condition of Zionist settlement of "Israel" was the Palestinians being driven from the land of their birth. Surely that expulsion and that dispossession, of the Palestinian people, means that Israel began with an immense act of injustice against an indigenous population, the Palestinians, in the interests of settlers from Europe. How could Israel degenerate very much, after such a beginning? Does the expulsion of the Palestinians mean that Israel had any moral capital, to begin with?

(2) As far as Chomsky's estimating that the Israel lobby in the US does not really have very much power, all I know is that no one in the state I live in, can get our representatives in the US Congress even to discuss the question of Israel's unjust acts against the Palestinians, because any criticism of Israel by someone in the US Congress, will lead to that politician's defeat at the hands of a pro-Israel opponent, as has already happened. It sure looks to me like the Israel lobby has the US Congress just where the Israelis want them, voting immense amounts of money to Israel every year. That a lobby on behalf of any foreign power enjoys that kind of influence in the US Congress is very unfortunate, I think.

The final thing to be said is, I guess, obvious, namely that Chomsky comes across in the video as someone who is genuinely pro-Israel, a Zionist, in other words, which makes Chomsky not only a phony anarchist, but a phony leftist.
I think Chomsky is talking about the moral degeneration of Zionism into what we call Zionism today, but we would have called it anti-Zionism in for example the 1920s.

Regarding Chomsky being or not being a Zionist, well, he calls the civil war in Palestine in the 1940s an ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by Zionist miliatias, and he admits that it was the Zionists that started the Civil War and that the Arab attack on Israel was only the response by Arabs and began only after Zionist militias drove out 300,000 Palestinians from their homes.

He's very anti-Israel and anti-Zionist(the guy partially supports some Islamists that oppose Israel I believe)

[eyeheartlenin]

Chomsky, who publicly supports the Democrats every four years, is certainly not an anarchist. It really amazes me how people are able to deny the obvious: In past presidential elections, Chomsky publicly endorsed John Kerry and Barack Obama. That makes him a wealthy suburban Democrat, not an anarchist. What anarchist tells people to vote for the Democrats every four years? What anarchist is for a government bailout of the banks, the way Chomsky was? Anarchists are opposed to government as such.

It's obvious from the UCLA video that Chomsky is very concerned for Israel's survival, which makes him a Zionist.

[RGacky3]

I love how one guy brings up a chomsky video, and the whole thread turns into a chomsky bashing thread by Leninists, I'm starting to think its mainly due to the fact that he denounced the USSR from the begining (and was right), but get over it, why not deal with the points.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

A key point is the following train of thought:

Israel's influence on the US should not be overstated. The reason it is, is that the USs influence on Israel is often overstated. Whilst Israel cannot really 'influence' US policy to a great degree, Israel often goes it alone; the Israeli's are wily and determined. I think the recent wikileaks leaks re: Iran show this.

[Rafiq]

I love how one guy brings up a chomsky video, and the whole thread turns into a chomsky bashing thread by Leninists, I'm starting to think its mainly due to the fact that he denounced the USSR from the begining (and was right), but get over it, why not deal with the points.

Or, it's that he's a Liberal-Idealist who supports the democrats.

[Rafiq]

This is really not the case at all, actually.

Elaborate. Not really a colony in the literal sense, but an asset.

[Rafiq]

Chomsky isn't a Zionist :rolleyes: he's just a bastard scumbag.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Chomsky isn't a Zionist :rolleyes: he's just a bastard scumbag.

Well, i am not saying i like his way or think that he is not a kind of an opportunist... but how is he not an ultra-leftist?.... How many books have you read from his? Because i have read 'Understanding Power', 'Profit over People', 'Hegemony or Survival; America's Quest for Global Dominance', 'The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism', 'Manufacturing Consent' and have seen countless interviews of his. He is so not a liberal, he is an ultra leftist that holds the position "Why not take over your factories? Just do it!", he defames the US with it sown documents and is very provocative and paints a picture of the US government as being fascists with accounts of numerous support for dictators and policies... He is a complete ultra-leftist. I do not see how anyone who has actually read Chomsky's books and tried to understand his person (for instance: At one conference a comrade denounces capitalism ..'the bourgeoisie... proletarians need to take power!... stop this system once and for all...' and Chomsky responds saying he would "not use that kind of rhetoric, because it really doesn't help anyone" as to try to stop dogmatic elements of the left.) could EVER say Chomsky is a fuckign Liberal, it's quite ridiculous really.

Btw. I am an anti-capitalist Marxist-Leninist who is saying this: Chomsky is an ultra-leftist, and quite a decent academic with very good citation skills and scholarly integrity i may add.

[Rafiq]

Well, i am not saying i like his way or think that he is not a kind of an opportunist... but how is he not an ultra-leftist?.... How many books have you read from his? Because i have read 'Understanding Power', 'Profit over People', 'Hegemony or Survival; America's Quest for Global Dominance', 'The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism', 'Manufacturing Consent' and have seen countless interviews of his. He is so not a liberal, he is an ultra leftist that holds the position "Why not take over your factories? Just do it!", he defames the US with it sown documents and is very provocative and paints a picture of the US government as being fascists with accounts of numerous support for dictators and policies... He is a complete ultra-leftist. I do not see how anyone who has actually read Chomsky's books and tried to understand his person (for instance: At one conference a comrade denounces capitalism ..'the bourgeoisie... proletarians need to take power!... stop this system once and for all...' and Chomsky responds saying he would "not use that kind of rhetoric, because it really doesn't help anyone" as to try to stop dogmatic elements of the left.) could EVER say Chomsky is a fuckign Liberal, it's quite ridiculous really.

Btw. I am an anti-capitalist Marxist-Leninist who is saying this: Chomsky is an ultra-leftist, and quite a decent academic with very good citation skills and scholarly integrity i may add.

:lol: Chomsky isn't an Ultra Leftist, not by any means. He's just a.... Consistant Liberal (back then Liberals, should they see the world today, would agree with his ass).

[RGacky3]

Who the hell cares what Chomsky is.

[Prometeo liberado]

A key point is the following train of thought:

Israel's influence on the US should not be overstated. The reason it is, is that the USs influence on Israel is often overstated. Whilst Israel cannot really 'influence' US policy to a great degree, Israel often goes it alone; the Israeli's are wily and determined. I think the recent wikileaks leaks re: Iran show this.

I agree and don't agree with this post. Israel, through the evangelical right and the liberal jewish-zionist and all the money that they collectively throw in to the various pacs, does have an enormous influence on american foreign policy.

I do agree that israel does go it alone when it has to though. The various orthodox parties can make or break a government. There is a bill to be paid when forming a coalition with them.

I heard a radio show yesterday in which a lobbyist for various zionist causes, who has served time for tax evasion and undisclosed payments to government officials, stated that his job was to lobby for the seizure of Saudi oil. Seizure! The fact that government officials take money and gifts from these people tell me that they n fact do have much influence on the Hill.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

Chomsky is very concerned for Israel's survival, which makes him a Zionist.

So respecting a nation's right to self determination makes you a Zionist now?

[social191]

I think that we should not be helping Israel. Israel is the most terrorist-torn country in the middleast, mainly because the fascist zionist regime that they have. The Prime Minister of that country cannot be trusted and he's encouraging us to go to war against countries that mean no threat to us. I remember reading the sunday newspaper and I read that a 23 year old Palestian male college student was walking in Israeli territory and the Israeli military shot and killed him. I think it's time that protest against this genecide of innocent Palestians. It's their land, not Israel's. Instead of helping Israel, we should be sanctioning them for their war crimes.