More middle-class radicals promote Jew-hatred

[Severian]

(If some mod or admin could edit the subtitle, those should be quote marks around "Israel Lobby". Thanks.)

More middle-class radicals promote Jew-hatred
"Israel Lobby" conspiracy theory dangerous for working people

From the Militant (http://www.themilitant.com/2006/7019/701950.html)

BY SAM MANUEL
WASHINGTON
Editors of the London Review of Books are standing by their decision to publish a paper by Harvard academic dean Stephen Walt and University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer, entitled The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. The paper promotes the false and reactionary theory that U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East is manipulated by a Jewish lobby with support from a network of "neoconservative gentiles."

A March 30 article by James Petras, a professor at the State University of New York at Binghamton, tries to provide an "analysis" of why this is the case, by claiming that Jews are disproportionately represented among finance capitalists resulting in an equally disproportionate Jewish influence over U.S. foreign policy. The article is posted on the antiwar website AxisofLogic.com. Petras is looked to by many on the left in the United States and Latin America as a socialist.

Others on the left have endorsed these views. In a column in the April 24 Nation, Perry Anderson, editor of the New Left Review and history professor at University of California, Los Angeles, praised the Walt/Mearsheimer paper. He called it a "genuinely critical reflection on American foreign policy, from thinkers who have earned the title 'realist.'"

The conspiracy theories peddled in Petras' article and the Harvard paper, and backed by others on the left, leave the U.S. capitalist class and the profit system off the hook as the root cause of the devastating conditions imposed on working people worldwide. At the same time these 'theories' fan the flames of Jew-hatred and American nationalism. So far the U.S. left - from the Communist Party USA to the Workers World Party - has been silent on this issue.

The 83-page paper by Walt and Mearsheimer argues that the unmatched power of the 'Israel Lobby' leads the U.S. government to subordinate 'American national interests' to those of Israel. According to the document, this lobby has the backing of pro-Israel neoconservative politicians like former deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz and former Pentagon adviser Richard Perle. Walt and Mearsheimer claim that the Israel Lobby also controls the editorial boards of the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, and holds the leading position in several foreign policy research institutes, among them the Brookings Institution. The Militant already analyzed the implications of this tract in the article, "The myth of the 'neoconservative' and 'Israel Lobby' conspiracy: How U.S. foreign policy shifted after Cold War," in its May 1 issue.
(here (http://www.themilitant.com/2006/7017/701750.html))

London Review of Books
An edited version of the Harvard paper appeared in the March 23 London Review of Books. Despite receiving what they describe as 'a great many letters' criticizing its publication, some of which they reproduced, the editors of the literary journal said in the April 20 issue they stand by their decision to publish it. They also announced they will run a reply by Walt and Mearsheimer to the letters in the magazine's next issue.

The magazine's editors also noted that some of the letters congratulating the authors of the paper are of an 'anti-Semitic nature.' One of them applauded Walt and Mearsheimer for having exposed a 'secret Jewish conspiracy,' and its author felt the need to spell it 'JEWISH conspiracy.' Nonetheless they asserted that what the letters supporting and opposing the article have in common is that they "come from people who appear not to have read the piece, and who seem incapable of distinguishing between criticism of Israeli or U.S. government policy and anti-Semitism."

One of the letters was from Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz. Among other points, he took exception to two of the paper's central arguments - the United States has become a target of "terrorism" because of its support for Israel and that Washington and Tel Aviv have different, if not conflicting, interests in the Middle East.

"In fact bin Laden was primarily motivated by the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia," Dershowitz writes. He is referring to al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden who along with the leader of other Islamic jihadist movements say their goal is to overthrow 'apostate' regimes and establish Islamic states in majority Arab countries. For bin Laden and these groups, the rulers of Saudi Arabia are 'infidels' controlling and profaning the holy sites of Islam.

Another letter came from Robert Pfaltzgraff of the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis. The institution was one of many "think tanks" at which Walt and Mearsheimer claim the Israel Lobby has a "commanding presence." Pfaltzgraff wrote that "to the extent that such studies support Israel or any other states in the region, this is the result of an independent analysis of US needs and interests."

Jewish bankers
In his article Petras comes to the defense of Walt and Mearsheimer. He denounces the "virulent" campaign against the professors' "well documented" paper as another example of the "growing tyranny of the pro-Israel minority over our civil liberties."

He then goes on to assert that "a significant affluent minority of prominent Jewish banking and real estate millionaires are active in financing and promoting Israeli policy either directly or through pro-Israel lobbies."

Petras even infers a connection between alleged Jewish prominence in the garment industry - as owners and union "bosses" - and the decline in wages and union membership for garment workers. "No doubt the ethnic-class differences between the six-figure salaried Jewish labor bosses and the low paid Asian and Latino workers and the common class-ethnic positions of the labor bosses and the manufacturers facilitated these failed policies," he says.

No blood for Jews?
"The Jewish and Gentile critics of the war deliberately exclude the role of the minority of wealthy Jews and their political lobbies in shaping U.S. policy in the Middle East by focusing on the U.S. and overseas oil companies ('No blood for oil!')," Petras writes. "Jewish lobbies," he adds, "were far more pro-war than the oil industry."

The dangerous logic of such arguments peddling Jew hatred (to say "anti-Semitism" would be putting it mildly) should not be lost on working people. Such conspiracy theories have been the stock-in-trade of ultrarightists and fascists - mortal enemies of the working class and its allies. Petras' arguments also point to the political evolution of many middle-class "socialists" like him. The banner of opponents of the imperialist war against Iraq in 1990-91 was "No blood for oil!" Now, Petras says, it should be changed to "No blood for Israel!" or, by implication, to "No blood for Jews."

*************

I probably should add something on why this "Jewish Lobby" theory is false:
From SeeingRed a couple years back. (http://www.seeingred.com/Copy/5.1_jewish_lobby.htm)

On 23 January the otherwise-useful MidEast Realities site published an article picked up and circulated by a variety of emailing lists. Since it was given wider dissemination by progressive-minded people, a poisonous idea within it deserves to be answered.

The MER article contains this line as its second sentence: "Plus of course there is a day of reckoning still ahead for the American Jewish community which through its infamous 'Jewish Lobby' has pushed everyone around for so long on behalf of Israel, ruthlessly trying to pressure under all who oppose their terribly misguided and dangerously hypocritical designs."

Though of course this isn't the first time that such sentiments have been expressed, they represent a real political danger and should be soundly rejected by all opponents of Zionism, not to mention of U.S. imperialism.

As Ike Nahem writes in "Terrorism and Imperialism: Demystifying Osama bin Laden" (in SeeingRed.com issue #5.0): "[Some} defenders of Palestinian self-determination [...] point to the 'power' and 'influence' of the "Zionist lobby" to explain U.S support for Israel. This is a serious political error. It puts the cart before the horse and the servant before the master. Washington does not take orders from its Israeli dependency. It is naive in the extreme to portray Washington policymakers and strategists as gullible country bumpkins manipulated by Zionist and Jewish city slickers. Such a view plays into traditional ultrarightist anti-semitic propaganda which elevates the power and influence of 'the Jews' into a scapegoating, conspiracy-mongering explanation of the world."

The MER article goes even further by referring to "the American Jewish community" instead of supporters of Zionism. In fact, many Jews are staunch opponents of Zionism and defenders of Palestinian rights. Blaming "the American Jewish community" is a reactionary position that paints all U.S. Jews as an enemy.

This is worsened by the implied threat to them/us that "there is a day of reckoning still ahead."

U.S. imperialism is the most powerful and wealthy empire in the history of the world. As Ike points out, it is beyond laughable to think that it could be forced or bribed into advancing any interests besides their own. This is the same absurdity circulated by those who would take Washington off the hook for its 40year-plus utterly-hostile treatment of revolutionary Cuba (supposedly a product of U.S. imperialism quivering prostrate before a few thousand "powerful" Miami Cubans).

The number one problem we and the world confront is U.S. imperialism. Putting blame on "the American Jewish community" and the "infamous Jewish Lobby" --no matter whether it's done by defenders of Palestinians-- takes down the proper target and substitutes one that should send the most alarming shivers down any progressive person's spine.

Also: Public Eye, (http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v16n2/AntisemitismAfter.html) a left research group keeping track of the ultraright, points out some of the differences between opposing the Israeli state and scapegoating Jews generally.

[LSD]

Absolutely spot on.

As I have repeatedly said on this board, the frequency with which antisemtic myths find a home among "leftist" is imminently distressing.

If it's not some conspiracy theory about "rich Jews", it's nonsense about Ariel Sharon "admitting to controlling the US".

The reality is that Jews constitute a minority of both the political and economic rulling class. There are overwhelmingly more rich Christians than Jews and the idea that a couple of millionaires can singly-handedly shape the policies of a multi-trillion dollar empire is beyond ludicrous.

Of course, the reason that these scapegoating myths perpetuate is the same reason that they were so popular in 1930s Europe. It's just so much easier to imagine that there's a "great conspiracy" and that the "enemies" are clearly dilineated.

The advantage of conspiracy theories after all, whether they be antisemitic ("the world Jewish conspiracy"), anti-arab ("sleeper cells"), or just plain whacko (UFOS, the US organized 9/11, etc..) is that they offer simplicity.

They allow for clearly marked "bad guys" and give a quick and easy solution to all the word's problems -- getting rid of the "bad guys".

Instead of dealing with the reality of a broken system, conspiracy promoters peddle the myth that if only there weren't this "malignant influence", things would otherwise be fine.

The truth, however, is that as long as capitalism remains, things will never be fine. The US is not supporting Israel because of some "dark force" manipulating its policies, it's doing because it is a "dark force"!

The US itself is dependent on maintaining a global hegemony and a powerful strategic ally in the middle east is a part of that general strategy. It's not the "Jews" who are the problem, it's the American empire.

I suppose that "academic" leftist like the above named Harvard professors don't really like that idea, however. They're well aware that absent the American empire, their very prestigious position wouldn't be worth shit.

Like with all petty-bourgeois intellectuals, despite any personal "leftism", they know full well who pays their bills.

Here's a hint, it sure ain't the working class! :lol:

(by the way, Severian, was that subtitle meant to be something else? 'cause I really don't get the 1/2 thing. EDIT: nevermind, fixed.)

[Reuben]

absolutely excellent, i found this article on The Militant site a dew days agoand skimmed it and thought it was v good

[dso79]

Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery wrote a great article on this topic. Here are some excerpts:


The findings of the two professors are right to the last detail. Every Senator and Congressman knows that criticizing the Israeli government is political suicide. Two of them, a Senator and a Congressman, tried - and were politically executed. The Jewish lobby was fully mobilized against them and hounded them out of office. This was done openly, to set a public example. If the Israeli government wanted a law tomorrow annulling the Ten Commandments, 95 Senators (at least) would sign the bill forthwith.


The question, therefore, is not whether the two professors are right in their findings. The question is what conclusions can be drawn from them.

Let's take the Iraq affair. Who is the dog? Who the tail?

The Israeli government prayed for this attack, which has eliminated the strategic threat posed by Iraq. America was pushed into the war by a group of Neo-Conservatives, almost all of them Jews, who had a huge influence on the White House. In the past, some of them had acted as advisers to Binyamin Netanyahu.

On the face of it, a clear case. The pro-Israeli lobby pushed for the war, Israel is its main beneficiary. If the war ends in a disaster for America, Israel will undoubtedly be blamed.

Really? What about the American aim of getting their hands on the main oil reserves of the world, in order to dominate the world economy? What about the aim of placing an American garrison in the center of the main oil-producing area, on top of the Iraqi oil, between the oil of Saudi Arabia, Iran and the Caspian Sea? What about the immense influence of the big oil companies on the Bush family? What about the big multinational corporations, whose outstanding representative is Dick Cheney, that hoped to make hundreds of billions from the "reconstruction of Iraq"?

The lesson of the Iraq affair is that the American-Israeli connection is strongest when it seems that American interests and Israeli Interests are one (irrespective of whether that is really the case in the long run). The US uses Israel to dominate the Middle East, Israel uses the US to dominate Palestine.

Full article (http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1145734278)

[amanondeathrow]

LSD

Instead of dealing with the reality of a broken system, conspiracy promoters peddle the myth that if only there weren't this "malignant influence", things would otherwise be fine.

I agree that the essay failed to recognize the economic causes of Middle Eastern policy and that the authors reveal their realist convictions by ranting about "American interests".

That is not what is important about this article though. The reaction to the piece has also been mostly silent on the issues mentioned above and are attacking the professors for simply questioning the Israeli lobby, which you must admit has some influence.

This article must be viewed as an example of the extreme disdain the media has for any questioning of Israel. There is no need to debate the actual article; the two authors are Harvard realists who are obviously enemies of the left.

We must stop worry about the anti-Semitic things they espouse and start worrying about how we can convince people that Israel must not be supported in its murderous campaign.

[Reuben]

why must we stop worrying about the anti-semitic aspects of the article. Do you think that anti-semitism is a non-issue?
Do you think that red herrings do not seriously hamper the opposition to american support for Israel?

[amanondeathrow]

Reuben

why must we stop worrying about the anti-semitic aspects of the article. Do you think that anti-semitism is a non-issue?

Of course I don't think that anti-Semitism is a non issue, the article in question clearly illustrates that it is still alive and well. There will always be some realist professor of politician who tries to scapegoat some group for the failure of American policy. It will be a common occurrence as long as this system exists and there is no sense arguing over its validity on a revolutionary left board.

What is important is the reaction the article received and the questions it raises over how to change US policy in the Middle East.

The firestorm that erupted in the mainstream media over the article was not a reaction to its denial of economic causes for US foreign policy (except by a few leftist publications), but because it simply brought up the issue of the Israeli lobby.

ADL and other Israeli apologists’ claims of anti Semitism would have been said even if the article had addressed the true nature of the Israeli lobby and Middle Eastern policy.

The silence that surrounds this issue and the constant attacks on those who question it, is an issue that should be important to every leftist.

[Emperor Ronald Reagan]

"Jew-hatred?" What kind of fucking idiot are you?


The paper promotes the false and reactionary theory that U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East is manipulated by a Jewish lobby with support from a network of "neoconservative gentiles."

So whenever Fortune magazine or any other group publishes the results of their servuys commisioned among Washington insiders to rank the most powerful interest groups in the U.S. and AIPAC is consistently cited as second more influential, they're all just "middle-class radicals" promoting "Jew-hatred," huh? That's the best you can do? Sounds to me like you're a fucking idiot abusing the taboo of "anti-Semitism" in order to seal off the Zionist lobby of its regular and consistent influence over American policy.

Crawl back under the ADL rock you came from.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by James Petras
In the most recent period, Wall Street’s ethnic and religious base has broadened as corporate capital has taken over from family-owned banks. Nevertheless among the new generation of upwardly mobile speculators, there is a pronounced disproportion of individuals of Jewish origin, who are not necessarily religious or involved in Jewish or Israeli communal activities, fund raising or politics. Nevertheless a significant affluent minority of prominent Jewish banking and real estate millionaires are active in financing and promoting Israeli policy either directly or through the key pro-Israel lobbies like AIPAC and the President of the Major Jewish Organizations. -- emphasis added.

http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/...cle_21579.shtml (http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_21579.shtml)

Um...let me get this straight.

There are "too many" Jewish bankers.

And a "significant minority" of them actively support Israeli imperialism.

And this is supposed to "explain" the recent behavior of U.S. imperialism?

Watch the tail "wag the dog"! :lol:

I have no doubt whatsoever that there's a well-financed and well-organized pro-Israel lobby in the U.S. Our Christian fascists have "theological" reasons for supporting it.

The proposition that AIPAC "determines" the policies of U.S. imperialism in the Middle East is...well, preposterous!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[udarnik]

Thought this was an interesting perspective on the lobby debate.

u.

It's Not Either / Or

The Israel Lobby

By NORMAN G. FINKELSTEIN

In the current fractious debate over the role of the Israel Lobby in the formulation and execution of US policies in the Middle East, the "either-or" framework -- giving primacy to either the Israel Lobby or to U.S. strategic interests -- isn't, in my opinion, very useful.

Apart from the Israel-Palestine conflict, fundamental U.S. policy in the Middle East hasn't been affected by the Lobby. For different reasons, both U.S. and Israeli elites have always believed that the Arabs need to be kept subordinate. However, once the U.S. solidified its alliance with Israel after June 1967, it began to look at Israelis and Israelis projected themselves as experts on the "Arab mind." Accordingly, the alliance with Israel has abetted the most truculent U.S. policies, Israelis believing that "Arabs only understand the language of force" and every few years this or that Arab country needs to be smashed up. The spectrum of U.S. policy differences might be narrow, but in terms of impact on the real lives of real people in the Arab world these differences are probably meaningful, the Israeli influence making things worse.

The claim that Israel has become a liability for U.S. "national" interests in the Middle East misses the bigger picture. Sometimes what's most obvious escapes the eye. Israel is the only stable and secure base for projecting U.S. power in this region. Every other country the U.S. relies on might, for all anyone knows, fall out of U.S. control tomorrow. The U.S.A. discovered this to its horror in 1979, after immense investment in the Shah. On the other hand, Israel was a creation of the West; it's in every respect * culturally, politically, economically in thrall to the West, notably the U.S. This is true not just at the level of a corrupt leadership, as elsewhere in the Middle East but what's most important at the popular level. Israel's pro-American orientation exists not just among Israeli elites but also among the whole population. Come what may in Israel, it's inconceivable that this fundamental orientation will change. Combined with its overwhelming military power, this makes Israel a unique and irreplaceable American asset in the Middle East.

In this regard, it's useful to recall the rationale behind British support for Zionism. Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann once asked a British official why the British continued to support Zionism despite Arab opposition. Didn't it make more sense for them to keep Palestine but drop support for Zionism? "Although such an attitude may afford a temporary relief and may quiet Arabs for a short time," the official replied, "it will certainly not settle the question as the Arabs don't want the British in Palestine, and after having their way with the Jews, they would attack the British position, as the Moslems are doing in Mesopotamia, Egypt and India." Another British official judged retrospectively that, however much Arab resentment it provoked, British support for Zionism was prudent policy, for it established in the midst of an "uncertain Arab world a well-to-do educated, modern community, ultimately bound to be dependent on the British Empire." Were it even possible, the British had little interest in promoting real Jewish-Arab cooperation because it would inevitably lessen this dependence. Similarly, the U.S. doesn't want an Israel truly at peace with the Arabs, for such an Israel could loosen its bonds of dependence on the U.S. , making it a less reliable proxy. This is one reason why the claim that Jewish elites are "pro"-Israel makes little sense. They are "pro" an Israel that is useful to the U.S. and, therefore, useful to them. What use would a Paul Wolfowitz have of an Israel living peacefully with its Arab neighbors and less willing to do the U.S.'s bidding?

The historical record strongly suggests that neither Jewish neo-conservatives in particular nor mainstream Jewish intellectuals generally have a primary allegiance to Israel * in fact, any allegiance to Israel. Mainstream Jewish intellectuals became "pro"-Israel after the June 1967 war when Israel became the U.S.A.' s strategic asset in the Middle East, i.e., when it was safe and reaped benefits. To credit them with ideological conviction is, in my opinion, very naive. They're no more committed to Zionism than the neo-conservatives among them were once committed to Trotskyism; their only ism is opportunism. As psychological types, these newly minted Lovers of Zion most resemble the Jewish police in the Warsaw ghetto. "Each day, to save his own skin, every Jewish policeman brought seven sacrificial lives to the extermination altar," a leader of the Resistance ruefully recalled. "There were policemen who offered their own aged parents, with the excuse that they would die soon anyhow." Jewish neo-conservatives watch over the U.S. "national" interest, which is the source of their power and privilege, and in the Middle East it happens that this "national" interest largely coincides with Israel's "national" interest. If ever these interests clashed, who can doubt that, to save their own skins, they'll do exactly what they're ordered to do, with gusto?

Unlike elsewhere in the Middle East, U.S. elite policy in the Israel-Palestine conflict would almost certainly not be the same without the Lobby. What does the U.S.A. gain from the Israeli settlements and occupation? In terms of alienating the Arab world, it's had something to lose. The Lobby probably can't muster sufficient power to jeopardize a fundamental American interest, but it can significantly raise the threshold before U.S. elites are prepared to act * i.e., order Israel out of the Occupied Palestinian Territories, as the U.S. finally pressured the Indonesians out of Occupied East Timor. Whereas Israel doesn't have many options if the U.S. does finally give the order to pack up, the U.S. won't do so until and unless the Israeli occupation becomes a major liability for it: on account of the Lobby the point at which "until and unless" is reached significantly differs. Without the Lobby and in the face of widespread Arab resentment, the U.S. would perhaps have ordered Israel to end the occupation by now, sparing Palestinians much suffering;

In the current "either-or" debate on whether the Lobby affects U.S. Middle East policy at the elite level, it's been lost on many of the interlocutors that a crucial dimension of this debate should be the extent to which the Lobby stifles free and open public discussion on the subject. For in terms of trying to broaden public discussion here on the Israel-Palestine conflict the Lobby makes a huge and baneful difference. Especially since U.S. elites have no entrenched interest in the Israeli occupation, the mobilization of public opinion can have a real impact on policy-making which is why the Lobby invests so much energy in suppressing discussion.

Norman Finkelstein's most recent book is Beyond Chutzpah: On the misuse of anti-Semitism and the abuse of history (University of California Press). His web site is www.NormanFinkelstein.com.

[Emperor Ronald Reagan]

Originally posted by redstar2000
I have no doubt whatsoever that there's a well-financed and well-organized pro-Israel lobby in the U.S. Our Christian fascists have "theological" reasons for supporting it.

The proposition that AIPAC "determines" the policies of U.S. imperialism in the Middle East is...well, preposterous!

This is why I lack the appetite to continue this debate with your kind. You, and the rest of your ilk rushing to the lobby's defense, have made it obvious you are not in the least bit familiar with Mearsheimer and Walt's thesis. I'm not going to debate a paper with you that you not only have not read, but aren't even remotely familiar with the thesis of. So please, Mr. AIPAC attack dog, do not attempt to make judgements about subjects you know nothing about.

The authors did not blame the entirety of US policy in the ME on Israel's lobby. That position has never been advanced by the lobby's serious Left critics.. ever. Likewise nobody advances the idea that without the lobby, America would be the Palestinians best friend. We have no illusions about the role of US imperialism that exists, irrespective of the lobby (although the lobby has been useful in pushing the US political agenda elsewhere).

I'm not sure what's more predictable, the reaction of "anti-Semitism" the two professor's paper elicited here and that I would see the bulk of the administrative idiots at "revolutionary" left rushing to the lobby's defense, or that you cretin would fail to respond to the points raised by Mearsheimer and Walt and rather than write a refutation, would simply (ab)use the taboo of "anti-Semitism" to discredit any serious, factual criticisms of the role the Israel Lobby has played in influencing America's ME policies.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 07:10 AM
Of course, the reason that these scapegoating myths perpetuate is the same reason that they were so popular in 1930s Europe. It's just so much easier to imagine that there's a "great conspiracy" and that the "enemies" are clearly dilineated.
Slow down a bit. How many people have you heard talking about this? Zero, myself. Jews are not a popular scaepgoat anymore. There's much more popularly despised ethnic groups. I haven't noticed any upsurge in anti-semetic sentiment, this is only the second time I've even read this story, and the first time was in an academic journal.


The advantage of conspiracy theories after all, whether they be antisemitic ("the world Jewish conspiracy"), anti-arab ("sleeper cells"), or just plain whacko (UFOS, the US organized 9/11, etc..) is that they offer simplicity.


Good point. I've heard more of this shite lately.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Dee's [email protected] 6 2006, 01:31 PM
Of course I don't think that anti-Semitism is a non issue, the article in question clearly illustrates that it is still alive and well. There will always be some realist professor of politician who tries to scapegoat some group for the failure of American policy. It will be a common occurrence as long as this system exists and there is no sense arguing over its validity on a revolutionary left board.
Will it be common on the left or not? That's the question. It's not just the liberals' research paper, but Petras' endorsement - and addition of his own anti-Semitic curliques.

The bit about Jewish capitalists and Jewish union leaders being in cahoots, for example! That was a hallmark of Nazi propaganda in the 30s, too: the Jewish-controlled banks and the Jewish-controlled "Marxist" workers organizations.......which, in Nazi propaganda, included both the Social Democrats and the Communists.


The firestorm that erupted in the mainstream media over the article was not a reaction to its denial of economic causes for US foreign policy (except by a few leftist publications), but because it simply brought up the issue of the Israeli lobby.

ADL and other Israeli apologists’ claims of anti Semitism would have been said even if the article had addressed the true nature of the Israeli lobby and Middle Eastern policy.

If you want to make that point, make it in relation to somebody who is falsely accused of anti-Semitism. There are plenty of examples of that you could use - and that will continue to be the case as long as Israel remains a useful tool of U.S. foreign policy, to turn around one of your points.

You seem to acknowledge the accusation isn't false here ("the article in question clearly illustrates that it is still alive and well"). Why object to the ADL's claims in one of the cases where they are true?

It's certainly not new for the ADL and others to use false accusations of anti-Semitism to demonize opposition to the Israeli state, the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, or U.S. aid to Israel and the occupation. The Militant's among the many who've been the target of these false accusations.

What is new, and worth noting and condemning, is the growth of anti-Jewish conspiracy theories and scapegoating among supposed socialists and anti-imperialists.

****

The Finkelstein article has some valid points, IMO. For example, it's correct to place the influence of groups like AIPAC in the context of the U.S. empire's interests.

He's mistaken, though, to say the occupation is not in Washington's interets. It's in Uncle Sam's interests to keep the Israeli state strong and stable; and a meaningfully independent Palestinian state isn't compatible with that...as every faction of the Israeli ruling class agrees.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 03:30 PM
Slow down a bit. How many people have you heard talking about this? Zero, myself.
Have you read this thread?


Jews are not a popular scaepgoat anymore. There's much more popularly despised ethnic groups. I haven't noticed any upsurge in anti-semetic sentiment,

In general? Maybe not. On the left? Definitely increasing, as are other influences of ultraright ideology.

No anti-Semitism or other racism at all should be tolerated from anyone who claims to be socialist or communist.

And Jews fill a role which other scapegoats cannot. Other scapegoats are mostly at the bottom of society; Jews are relatively privileged - and perceived by some as supremely privileged. Anti-Jewish scapegoating is the socialism of fools.

Jew-hatred stands in for opposition to capitalism; it diverts anti-capitalist anger into attacks on the working class and workers' organizations.

Because - Nazis have always claimed, and now Petras agrees - "the Jews" control both capitalist businesses and the workers' organizations.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Severian+May 8 2006, 01:39 AM--> (Severian @ May 8 2006, 01:39 AM)
[email protected] 7 2006, 03:30 PM
Slow down a bit. How many people have you heard talking about this? Zero, myself.
Have you read this thread? [/b]
I was speaking of daily life. I just don't come across people who rant against Jews.



Jews are not a popular scaepgoat anymore. There's much more popularly despised ethnic groups. I haven't noticed any upsurge in anti-semetic sentiment,

In general? Maybe not. On the left? Definitely increasing, as are other influences of ultraright ideology.

No anti-Semitism or other racism at all should be tolerated from anyone who claims to be socialist or communist.

And Jews fill a role which other scapegoats cannot. Other scapegoats are mostly at the bottom of society; Jews are relatively privileged - and perceived by some as supremely privileged. Anti-Jewish scapegoating is the socialism of fools.

Jew-hatred stands in for opposition to capitalism; it diverts anti-capitalist anger into attacks on the working class and workers' organizations.

Because - Nazis have always claimed, and now Petras agrees - "the Jews" control both capitalist businesses and the workers' organizations.

It seems like a valid point about Jews filling a role other scapegoats can't - in that it would mislead any workers movement. I think antisemetism should be fought against as you're doing ... I would just say it's not as widespread and some fear it is, though I could be wrong.

[The Beat]

People,

Get on the right side of the tracks. The Jews are not the problem, no more than the Muslims or the Christians are the problem. Please understand what is going on in the world.

The Jews are not the problem. They are a religious group, period. THE ZIONISTS are the problem.

The Muslims are not the problem. THE WAHABIS are the problem.

The Christians are not the problem. THE ZEALOUS RIGHT CHRISTIANS are the problem.

Let's put everything in perspective, please.

[praxis1966]

The massive foreign and military aid sent to Israel has less to do with Jews and more to do with Christians and oil (not that Israel has oil, but they are our closest ally in the region and serve a great strategic purpose). The real reason the neo-cons have such an affinity for Israel and against the Palestinians:


Zion's Christian Soldiers
(CBS)

This week, Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told President Bush that he would start to dismantle some illegal Jewish settlements on the West Bank as part of an agreement with the new Palestinian Prime Minister.

That news has already alarmed those Jewish settlers -- and ultra-Zionist Israelis who believe that the Jewish State should control all of the Biblical Jewish homeland.

But they're not the only group that feels that way. So do Fundamentalist Christian Evangelicals who make up the largest single religious grouping in the United States. Correspondent Bob Simon first reported this story on October 6, 2002.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What's the number one item on the agenda of the Christian Right? Abortion? School Prayer? No and No. Believe it or not, what's most important to a lot of conservative Christians is the Jewish State. Israel: Its size, its strength, and its survival. Why?

There is the alliance between America and Israel in the war on Islamic terror. But it goes deeper. For Christians who interpret the bible in a literal fashion, Israel has a crucial role to play in bringing on the Second Coming of Christ.

Last fall, supporters of the Christian Coalition gathered on the Mall in Washington to express their faith and to lobby the administration. The rally was organized by the Christian Coalition, which wants to make sure that the Bush Administration sees the struggle in the Middle East between Jews and Muslims their way - the Christian way.

At one congregation in Colorado, it’s Israel Awareness Day. But this is not a Jewish congregation. They are all Christians. Not only are they holding these pep rallies all across America, they’re also streaming here to Israel, to the dangerous streets of Jerusalem to express their undying devotion.

American Christian Zionists say they are now a more important source of support for Israel than American Jews or the traditional Jewish lobby.

“It is my belief that the Bible Belt in America is Israel’s only safety belt right now,” says Rev. Jerry Falwell, one of the leaders of the Christian Right. That’s the bulk of Evangelical Christians; Falwell claims to speak for all of them.

“There are 70 million of us,” he says. “And if there’s one thing that brings us together quickly it’s whenever we begin to detect our government becoming a little anti-Israel.”

Falwell began to detect just that in April 2002 when President Bush called on Israel to withdraw its tanks from Palestinian towns on the West Bank. So Falwell shot off a letter of protest to the White House, which was followed by a hundred thousand e-mails from Christian conservatives. Israel did not move its tanks. Mr. Bush did not ask again.

“There’s nothing that would bring the wrath of the Christian public in this country down on this government like abandoning or opposing Israel in a critical matter,” Falwell says. The “Christian public” is, he says, Mr. Bush’s core constituency.

“I really believe when the chips are down Ariel Sharon can trust George Bush to do the right thing every time,” says Falwell.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prime Minister Sharon can apparently trust the Christian Evangelicals to do the right thing too. They treated him like a rock star when they flocked to Jerusalem last fall to celebrate the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles.

What propels them? Why do they love Israel so much? The return of the Jews to their ancient homeland is seen by Evengelicals as a precondition for the Second Coming of Christ. Therefore, when the Jewish state was created in 1948 they saw it as a sign.

Israel’s conquest of Jerusalem and the West Bank in 1967 also deepened their excitement and heightened their anticipation. And today’s war between Jews and Arabs was also prophesied, they say. They’ve seen it all before – in the pages of the Bible.

“The Bible does not contain the word of God,” says Ed McAteer. “Listen to me closely. The Bible is the word of God.” McAteer is known as the Godfather of the Christian Right. He’s a former Colgate marketing executive from Memphis, and a founder of the Moral Majority.

McAteer believes that the current situation is the beginning of the final battle. “I believe that we are seeing prophecy unfold so rapidly and dramatically and wonderfully and, without exaggerating, makes me breathless.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But he’s not the only one. Countless millions of Americans are reading a series of novels called “Left Behind.” These novels are topping bestseller lists all over the country and they’re being made into movies. They chronicle apocalyptic times, and the setting is the 21st century, complete with war planes and TV correspondents.

However, the plot is ripped from the pages of the Bible, so it all winds up here in Israel where, according to the Book of Revelations, the final battle in the history of the future will be fought on an ancient battlefield in northern Israel called Armageddon. It will follow seven years of tribulation during which the earth will be shaken by such disasters that previous human history will seem like a day in the country. The blood will rise as high as a horse’s bridle at Armageddon, before Christ triumphs to begin his 1,000-year rule.

And the Jews? Well, two-thirds of them will have been wiped out by now. But the survivors will accept Jesus at last.

“The Jews die or convert. As a Jew, I can’t feel very comfortable with the affections of somebody who looks forward to that scenario,” says Gershom Gorenberg, who knows that scenario well.

Gorenberg is the author of the “End of Days,” a book about those Christian evangelicals who choose to read the Bible literally. “They don’t love real Jewish people. They love us as characters in their story, in their play, and that’s not who we are, and we never auditioned for that part, and the play is not one that ends up good for us.”

“If you listen to the drama they’re describing, essentially it’s a five-act play in which the Jews disappear in the fourth act.”

But if that makes Gershom Gorenberg feel uncomfortable, these Christians say it’s only because he doesn’t understand how deeply they love him.

“The Jews need conversion,” says Kay Arthur. “They need to know that the Messiah is coming. And the Bible tells us what’s going to happen.” Arthur heads an organization called Precept Ministries in Chattanooga, Tenn. She brings thousands of pilgrims to the Holy Land.

The Christian fundamentalists believe the only Israelis who are really listening to God are the hard line Jewish settlers who live on the West Bank and Gaza and refuse to move. The Christians trudge up to these settlements as if they were making pilgrimages to holy shrines. That’s because they and the settlers share a core conviction.

They believe that God gave the land of Israel to the Jewish people. “Every grain of sand, every grain of sand between the Dead Sea, the Jordan River, and, and the Mediterranean Sea belongs to the Jews,” says McAteer. This includes the West Bank and Gaza.

What about the three million Palestinians who live on the West Bank and Gaza? McAteer suggests the bulk of them could be cleansed from this God-given real estate and moved to some Arab country. Nothing can come between the Jews and their land.

In fact, many fundamentalists believe that when Prime Minister Rabin signed the Oslo accords and offered to trade land for peace, it was not only a mistake, it was a sin.

“They were going against the word of God. You cannot go against the word of God. And I believe that God stopped it ... by the things that happened.” says Arthur. She hints that God punished Rabin by assassinating him. “I think that God did not want that Oslo Accord to go through.”

“God save us from these people,” says political analyst Yossi Alfer, who served 12 years in Israel’s intelligence agency, the Mossad. Later, he became Israel Director of the American Jewish Committee.

Says Alfer: “When you see what these people are encouraging Israel and the U.S. Administration to do that is, ignore the Palestinians, if not worse, if not kick them out, expand the settlements to the greatest extent possible, they are leading us into a scenario of out and out disaster.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But many American Jewish leaders who used to shun support from the Christian Right have changed their minds. Abe Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League, accepts their support.

“On this specific issue on this day we come together. And what is the issue? The issue is fighting terrorism,” Foxman says.

That is precisely what the Bush Administration and the Israeli Government have been saying since September 11, that they are allies in the war on terror. But the Christian Fundamentalists go further. They say it is not just an alliance between nations but between religions.

“A lot of Muslims feel these days that Christians and Jews are getting together and ganging up on them,” Simon said to Falwell.

“That’s true. I’m sorry, that’s true. I hope it will cease to be so. But I think that is the fact right now,” says Falwell.

Falwell believes most Muslims want to live in peace but, he says, the lines have been drawn. Christians and Jews are on one side, Muslims on the other and, he says, those lines were drawn more than a thousand years ago.

“You wrote an approving piece recently about a book called ‘Unveiling Islam,’” says Simon to Falwell. “And you, the authors of that book wrote, ‘The Muslim who commits acts of violence in jihad does so with the approval of Mohammed.’ Do you believe that?"

“I do,” says Fallwell. “I think Mohammed was a terrorist. I read enough of the history of his life, written by both Muslims and non-Muslims, that he was a violent man, a man of war.”

“So, in the same way that Moses provided the ultimate example for the Jews and same way that Jesus provided the ultimate example for Christians, Mohammed provided the ultimate example for Muslims and he was a terrorist,” asks Simon.

“In my opinion,” says Fallwell. “And I do believe that - Jesus set the example for love, as did Moses. And I think that Mohammed set an opposite example.”

What frightens Alfer is that he hears much of Falwell’s world view reflected in the words of the Bush Administration.

“When we hear expressions like “the evil ones,” this kind of black and white view of good guys, the bad guys,” says Alfer.

But as long as Jews are the good guys in this representation, this is good for the Jews, isn’t it?

“It’s not good for the Jews. It’s not good for the Jews," says Alfer. "We have to get God out of this conflict if we’re going to have any chance to survive as a healthy, secure Jewish state."

Kinda makes sectarian violence in Northern Ireland look like a spitball fight, now doesn't it?

[TC]

The reality is that Jews constitute a minority of both the political and economic rulling class. There are overwhelmingly more rich Christians than Jews and the idea that a couple of millionaires can singly-handedly shape the policies of a multi-trillion dollar empire is beyond ludicrous.

Thats completely true...

...but there is a massive pro-israeli lobby, its just that its made up mostly of christian zionists rather than jewish zionists. Israel doesn't need a jewish conspiracy when it has such a fantastic christian conspiracy to back it up!

But ultimately they're not doing it for Israel they're doing it for their own American interests because keeping Israel at a constant state of military antagonism with the Arab states allows the US imperialists to use Israel to destablize the Arab states forcing them to seek American aid to counter the aid they're giving to Israel, thus allowing America to have a tremendous influence over the governments of the oil producing states. And thats the real underlying motivation for the Chistian zionists support of Israel, a backdoor method of controlling the Arab states; they don't give a damn about Jews they'd rather keep them out of their WASPy country clubs if possible.

[The Beat]

Praxis 1966,

Ariel Sharon has been dead since December, 2005.

Perhaps you can give us an updated version of your story. But don't quote Sharon, he has been dead since last year.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Emperor Ronald Reagan
...and rather than write a refutation...

Where is it written that we are "obligated" to "refute" self-evident nonsense?

Somehow, I've neglected to write an extensive and scholarly "refutation" of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion...simply dismissing it as a wretched forgery prepetrated by the Czarist police.

When I read someone who claims that there's a "disproportionate" number of "Jewish bankers" -- that is, "too many" -- how can I fail to notice the obvious parallel with Nazi propaganda in the period 1930-33?

Don't you remember? The Nazis complained that there were "too many Jewish bankers" and "too many Jewish lawyers" and "too many Jewish dentists" and "too many Jewish college professors" and "too many Jewish newspaper editors" and "too many Jewish art critics" and...well, just "too many Jews"!

From a communist standpoint, a banker is a banker...and his choice of superstition is irrelevant.

From an anti-semitic viewpoint, a Jew is a Jew...an "alien" and "enemy race".

Consequently, just as I will forego the dubious pleasure of "refuting" Mein Kampf, I will likewise ignore the anti-semitic rants of these so-called "professors".

They're full of shit, that's all.

And if you agree with them, so are you!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 8 2006, 05:20 AM
Praxis 1966,

Ariel Sharon has been dead since December, 2005.

Perhaps you can give us an updated version of your story. But don't quote Sharon, he has been dead since last year.
Nope, Sharon is very much alive, although thankfully not alive enough to cause more harm to the Palestinian people. I wouldn't be surprised if he is dead by the middle of the year, though.

[Emperor Ronald Reagan]

Originally posted by redstar2000+May 8 2006, 12:38 PM--> (redstar2000 @ May 8 2006, 12:38 PM)
Emperor Ronald Reagan
...and rather than write a refutation...

Where is it written that we are "obligated" to "refute" self-evident nonsense?

Somehow, I've neglected to write an extensive and scholarly "refutation" of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion...simply dismissing it as a wretched forgery prepetrated by the Czarist police.

When I read someone who claims that there's a "disproportionate" number of "Jewish bankers" -- that is, "too many" -- how can I fail to notice the obvious parallel with Nazi propaganda in the period 1930-33?

Don't you remember? The Nazis complained that there were "too many Jewish bankers" and "too many Jewish lawyers" and "too many Jewish dentists" and "too many Jewish college professors" and "too many Jewish newspaper editors" and "too many Jewish art critics" and...well, just "too many Jews"!

From a communist standpoint, a banker is a banker...and his choice of superstition is irrelevant.

From an anti-semitic viewpoint, a Jew is a Jew...an "alien" and "enemy race".

Consequently, just as I will forego the dubious pleasure of "refuting" Mein Kampf, I will likewise ignore the anti-semitic rants of these so-called "professors".

They're full of shit, that's all.

And if you agree with them, so are you!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif[/b]

I wonder if you realize that your response to the Mersheimer and Walt piece unwittingly validates the thesis of their piece - that the power of the lobby stifles any debate on this issue. That you cry "anti-Semitism" without reading the piece, or even being remotely grasping the thesis of the piece, which is nothing more than a smokescreen to hide your own ineptitude and political cowardice. You ridicule a piece you not only have not read, but are completely clueless about. Why you are talking about bankers I don't know, maybe you should read the piece before you make judgements. They do not mention any of the tripe you are bringing up, so its obvious you didnt even read what they said. You are just a blithering idiot grasping for straws.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I wonder if you realize that your response to the Mersheimer and Walt piece unwittingly validates the thesis of their piece - that the power of the lobby stifles any debate on this issue.

Please provide evidence that Redstar is related to the Isreal Lobby.


That you cry "anti-Semitism" without reading the piece, or even being remotely grasping the thesis of the piece, which is nothing more than a smokescreen to hide your own ineptitude and political cowardice.

It would help if you pointed out how Redstar was wrong about the piece beyond simply saying so.


You ridicule a piece you not only have not read, but are completely clueless about. Why you are talking about bankers I don't know, maybe you should read the piece before you make judgements. They do not mention any of the tripe you are bringing up, so its obvious you didnt even read what they said. You are just a blithering idiot grasping for straws.

Ahem.



A March 30 article by James Petras, a professor at the State University of New York at Binghamton, tries to provide an "analysis" of why this is the case, by claiming that Jews are disproportionately represented among finance capitalists resulting in an equally disproportionate Jewish influence over U.S. foreign policy.

It's just the usual Zionist conspiracy crap.

[Emperor Ronald Reagan]

Originally posted by NoXion

A March 30 article by James Petras, a professor at the State University of New York at Binghamton, tries to provide an "analysis" of why this is the case, by claiming that Jews are disproportionately represented among finance capitalists resulting in an equally disproportionate Jewish influence over U.S. foreign policy.
It's just the usual Zionist conspiracy crap.

You have just presented an entirely different article and subject altogether. We are discussing the John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt Harvard paper about the Israeli lobby. Please try to keep up.

[LSD]

We are discussing the John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt Harvard paper about the Israeli lobby.

No, actually we are debating anti-semitic conspiracy theories and their social consequences.

Certainly the paper by Mershemier and Walt is relevent to that endeavour, but by no means exclusively.

You may only be interested in discussing one academic piece on the subject, but don't try and impose your narrow restrictionism on the rest of us.


I wonder if you realize that your response to the Mersheimer and Walt piece unwittingly validates the thesis of their piece - that the power of the lobby stifles any debate on this issue.

Right, because you never see anyone debating the Israeli-Palestinian situation! :rolleyes:


So whenever Fortune magazine or any other group publishes the results of their servuys commisioned among Washington insiders to rank the most powerful interest groups in the U.S. and AIPAC is consistently cited as second more influential, they're all just "middle-class radicals" promoting "Jew-hatred," huh?

No, they're just missing the point.

It is unbriddled idealism to imagine that the foreign policy machine of the United State Empire can be so radically reformed by a few millionaires and dedicated zealots.

The reason that the AIPAC is percieved as so "powerful" is because supporting Israel is in the strategic and ideological interests of the American empire.

Yes, lobbying groups and voting blocs can effect republican policies to a point. The power of the exile Cuban community in Florida being an excellent example. But when it comes to Israel, we're not just talking about a trade policy or symbolic "support", we are talking about billions and billions of dollars every year.

More government money is spent on Israel every day than any lobby group could hope to raise in a year.

According to the latest data this "supremely powerful lobby" has a total budget of under 15 million.

And yet somehow we are expected to believe that this single and, relatively speaking, underfunded organization is solely responsible for a decades-long program of support for, probably, the second-most hated state on earth (after the US, of course).

There are a million political reasons to stop supporting Israel, and losing the support of one PAC is hardly a serious threat when there are so many others to choose from.

No, clearly there's more than bourgeois electioneering going one here. It is petty liberalism to imagine that the problem with the US government is "finance laws" or "influence". It protects one from having to address the actual problems.

It's not because of "lobbying" or "PACs" that the US supports Israel, it's because of American imperial interests. Something which liberals are retiscent to admit exists, but which communists must.

Recognizing the bleak reality can be somewhat depressing, however, and I understand that itss convienient to have someone to blame. After all, if it's just because of "rich Jews" that the US supports Israel, then the solution is immediately apparent!

Get rid of the "Jewish influence" and the Israel "problem" is "solved"!

..."finally"! :o

[Emperor Ronald Reagan]

Originally posted by LSD+--> (LSD)
I wonder if you realize that your response to the Mersheimer and Walt piece unwittingly validates the thesis of their piece - that the power of the lobby stifles any debate on this issue.
Right, because you never see anyone debating the Israeli-Palestinian situation![/b]

Wrong issue.. That is the issue of the Israeli lobby and their power, as Edward Said put it best in his aptly titled article; "the last American taboo." From the same article:


Originally posted by Edward Said+ The Last American Taboo--> (Edward Said @ The Last American Taboo)..But the role of these immigrants is insignificant beside that of their sympathizers at home. There the American Israel Public Affairs Committee—AIPAC—has for years been the most powerful single lobby in Washington. Drawing on a well-organized, well-connected, highly visible and wealthy Jewish population, AIPAC inspires an awed fear and respect across the political spectrum. Who is going to stand up to this Moloch on behalf of the Palestinians, when they can offer nothing, and AIPAC can destroy a congressional career at the drop of a chequebook? In the past, one or two members of Congress did resist AIPAC openly, but the many political action committees controlled by AIPAC made sure they were never re-elected. The only Senator who once remotely tried to oppose AIPAC was James Abourezk of South Dakota, who resigned for his own reasons after a single term. Today, virtually the entire Senate can be marshalled in a matter of hours into signing a letter to the President on Israel’s behalf. No-one exemplifies the sway of AIPAC better than Hillary Clinton, outdoing even the most right-wing Zionists in fervour for Israel in her avid clawing for power in New York, where she went so far as to call for the transfer of the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and the grant of leniency for Jonathan Pollard, the Israeli spy serving a life sentence in the US.[/b]


[email protected]
The reason that the AIPAC is percieved as so "powerful" is because supporting Israel is in the strategic and ideological interests of the American empire...
And yet somehow we are expected to believe that this single and, relatively speaking, underfunded organization is solely responsible for a decades-long program of support for, probably, the second-most hated state on earth (after the US, of course).

Yet again, members of "revolutionary" left are seen disingenuously conflating Mearsheimer and Walt's serious and factual criticisms of the role of the Israel lobby in influencing US Middle East policy. Again, creating a straw man.

As I said before, this "solely responsible" position has never been advanced by the lobby's serious Left critics. Why don't you read the piece before you make such idiotic judgements? We in no way exonerate US imperialism from its actions. We in no way advance the position that without the interference of the Israeli Lobby that the US would not pursue its imperial interests in the Middle East.. just that it would do so without generating the kind of problems America's support for Israel has engendered and have which been so costly not just on money but in lives.


LSD
Yes, lobbying groups and voting blocs can effect republican policies to a point. The power of the exile Cuban community in Florida being an excellent example.

Comparing the Cuban Lobby (or should I say anti-Cuban Lobby) to the Israel Lobby is like comparing the Yankees with your kid's little league baseball team. I can tell just from reading your post already how underqualified you are to be having this exchange. It is painfully obvious that you have not studied the Israel Lobby's history and what has come to those politicians who challenged the Lobby. Every single word in your post is a testament to this.. I don't have the time to give you a history lesson, I suggest starting with Mearsheimer and Walt's piece, but further discussion with someone as underqualified as you at this time is pointless.

[Janus]

Yes, I agree that these conspiracy theories are quite unfound. Although Jews may exert a certain amount of influence on the government and US foreign policy, it is not all that significant. Really, as others have mentioned, this scapegoating is simply a trace of the anti-semitism that continues to exist today.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Emperor Ronald Reagan+May 8 2006, 03:45 PM--> (Emperor Ronald Reagan @ May 8 2006, 03:45 PM)
LSD

I wonder if you realize that your response to the Mersheimer and Walt piece unwittingly validates the thesis of their piece - that the power of the lobby stifles any debate on this issue.
Right, because you never see anyone debating the Israeli-Palestinian situation!

Wrong issue.. That is the issue of the Israeli lobby and their power, as Edward Said put it best in his aptly titled article; "the last American taboo." [/b]
Oh. You mean the power of the lobby keeps people from discussing the power of the lobby?

But this thread is precisely discussing the power of the lobby, from my post at the beginning on down. I took the time to post some additional material to actually refute the conspiracy theory, despite its ridiculous nature. Have you responded to those arguments? Nope.

Nor has anyone silenced Walt and Mearsheimer or violated their right to free speech: it's just that others have excercise their own right to free speech and responded to their nonsense.

It's just that most people disagree with you. It's a remarkable kind of "reasoning" that concludes: if most people think I'm full of it, that proves I'm right.

We do see it from Holocaust deniers frequently: because most people and all serious historians reject their BS "evidence" - that proves the power of the Jewish conspiracy. They can't admit, especially to themselves, that most people reject their arguments because their arguments are worthless.

Now that you've finally given a couple of arguments along with the name calling, I'll even respond to 'em. Which is more attention than you probably deserve.

Said explained Hillary Clinton's rabid support to Israel by means of the "Israeli lobby". Apparently he thinks that 'cause she's a liberal, there's something anamolous about this position, which needs a special explanation.

But she's a liberal imperialist, Bill Clinton's administration was if anything more pro-Israel than most U.S. administrations, and Hillary Clinton is to the right of the Bush administration on some other questions as well. For example, in the current immigration debate, she just came out for building a high-tech fence along the border with Mexico. Maybe the Jews made her do that, too?

So we see with Said's article the mainstream roots of conspiracism. His illusions in liberalism lead him to explain liberals' actions by means of a vast, subversive conspiracy, rather than the normal functioning of the system and liberalism.


We in no way advance the position that without the interference of the Israeli Lobby that the US would not pursue its imperial interests in the Middle East.. just that it would do so without generating the kind of problems America's support for Israel has engendered and have which been so costly not just on money but in lives.

Which seems to imply it "would do so" without supporting Israel. After all, how could it avoid "generating the kind of problems America's support for Israel has engendered" without...avoiding support to Israel?

So you never said U.S. support to Israel is caused by the Israeli lobby, you just said U.S. support to Israel is caused by the Israeli lobby!

Groups like AIPAC, and more broadly the sympathies towards Israel of...I'm guessing, most U.S. Jewish voters - may have some impact on U.S. foreign policy. Even a relatively small group of voters can have an impact on politicians' positions on a single issue, if that issue strongly influences their voting preferences, and if that issue has little effect on how most people vote. Hillary Clinton's position on Israel may be partly influenced by the fact she's the Senator from New York, a state with a relatively large Jewish population. (Look ma, no conspiracy!)

The point is that's a secondary factor, Washington's imperial interests are the primary factor behind its support to Israel and "generating the kind of problems America's support for Israel has engendered".

Which is so obvious and irrefutable you don't even try to refute it; you just dodge around.

[YKTMX]

I think the "lobby" theory is, basically, a bit of an anti-semitic cultural meme.

It actually excuses American imperialism, by making it seem that they're being "led astray" by the Jews.

However, I do think that we have to be completely unstinting in our oppsition to Zionism.

Israel is illegitimate and it should be "wiped off the map".

:)

[Severian]

Originally posted by REPOMAN+May 7 2006, 08:48 PM--> (REPOMAN @ May 7 2006, 08:48 PM) It seems like a valid point about Jews filling a role other scapegoats can't - in that it would mislead any workers movement. [/b]
OK. Additionally, all fascist movements are based on phony anticapitalism - they recruit mostly middle-class people, plus some workers, based on their anger against big business. So the Jews are a necessary scapegoat for that too.


[email protected] 7 2006, 09:43 PM
(From an article)"I really believe when the chips are down Ariel Sharon can trust George Bush to do the right thing every time," says Falwell.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prime Minister Sharon can apparently trust the Christian Evangelicals to do the right thing too. They treated him like a rock star when they flocked to Jerusalem last fall to celebrate the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles.
The irony here: after Sharon fell into a coma, Falwell (or was it Robertson) suggested that God was punishing Sharon for giving up part of the land of Israel. (Mostly Gaza, I suppose.)

[Emperor Ronald Reagan]

Originally posted by Severian
But this thread is precisely discussing the power of the lobby, from my post at the beginning on down.

So? This is a "Revolutionary Left" message board. In the mainstream media and Washington D.C. however, the power of Israel's lobby is unchallenged. The Mearsheimer and Walt paper was an instance of courageous academics telling taboo truths.

As Mearsheimer and Walt put it: "Anyone who criticises Israel's actions or argues that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over US Middle East policy ... stands a good chance of being labelled an anti-Semite. Indeed, anyone who merely claims that there is an Israeli lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-Semitism ... Anti-Semitism is something no-one wants to be accused of."

"The bottom line is that AIPAC, which is a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on the U.S. Congress. Open debate about U.S. policy towards Israel does not occur there."

That the authors were predictably subject to withering attacks of "anti-Semitism" from idiots who haven't even read the piece only substantiates the very phenomenon they set out to prove.

[LSD]

Wrong issue.. That is the issue of the Israeli lobby and their power

You mean the issue we're debating right now? The one that the two papers cited were written on? The one that countless websites and articles have been discussing for years? :lol:

Honestly, ERR, you sound like the UFO-nuts claiming that the "aliens" have suppressed all discussion on "their" existance. Meanwhile, of course, they own the entire X-Files boxset and thre copies of Independency Day. :D

Like UFOs, the idea of the "supremely powerful lobby" is a part of the modern cultural zeitgeist. We can all remember having heard about it, but we can't really say from whom.

There's not a single credible shred of evidence in favour of it, of course, but it's so damn appealing as a "theory" that it just can't die.

And you really do like the idea, don't you? I mean that, in the face of searing refutation and in the absence of any evidence, you still maintain the "truth" of this "theory" ...it must really mean something for you, no?

I wonder, though, if you're even aware of the psychological role that it serves for you. That it allows you to avoid the pessimism and cynicism that tends to accompany a true realist epiphany.

After all, it's much easier to fight a bunch of rich bankers and lobbyists than it is to take on an entire system. But unfortunately convenience does not replace evidence and when it comes to evidence ...you have none.


We in no way exonerate US imperialism from its actions. We in no way advance the position that without the interference of the Israeli Lobby that the US would not pursue its imperial interests in the Middle East.. just that it would do so without generating the kind of problems America's support for Israel has engendered

Really? How?

How specifically could the US "pursue its imperial interests in the Middle East" without "generating problems"? Imperialism is generally not pleasant and those are victimized by it tend to be put off. Accordingly, any imperialist venture causes "problems".

The only way for the Us to "avoid" "generating problems" in the Middle East would be if it "avoided" getting involved in the Middle East, something which it is not going to do!

You may not "exonerate" the American goverment, but you sure are eager to embrace a convienient excuse for its actions. That is, while you are willing to acknowledge that your government is guilty of brutal imperialism, you prefer to think that its "not really their fault". That it's "the Jews" who are "making" them do it; that if only the "lobby" could be removed, things would be "right again".

As appealing as that "explanation" is, it is still nothing more than petty liberal idealism.

There is no "right again" in bourgeois capitalism and there is no shadowy "conspiracy" operating behind the scenes. The only "conspiracy" at work here is the conspiracy of capital and it is right in the open.


I can tell just from reading your post already how underqualified you are to be having this exchange. It is painfully obvious that you have not studied the Israel Lobby's history and what has come to those politicians who challenged the Lobby.

Because anyone who disagrees with you "must" be "underqualified". :rolleyes:

Tell me, how does your "lobby" theory account for the US' staunch support for the original "Appartheid state" -- South Africa?

Much like with Israel today, the US was virtually alone in its support for the racist settler state; and much like today it caused all sorts of "problems" for the United States.

So why did they do it? Was it "the Jews" who "made" Raegan tolerate racism? Was it the "lobby" that "forced his hand"? :lol:

Or maybe could it be that the US has always had a material interest in supporting isolated settler states. That through them they achieve a simultaneously powerful and subserviant sattelite. That is the inherent dichotomy of paloeocolonialism in a postcolonial world and the US has exploited it masterfully.

The US supports Israel because such support helps the US rulling class.

No "conspiracy" nescessary!


So? This is a "Revolutionary Left" message board. In the mainstream media and Washington D.C. however, the power of Israel's lobby is unchallenged.

The same could be said for Holocaust denial.

Although it is strongly supported by groups like the IHR or Zundlesite, in the "mainstream media and Washinton DC", it is never discussed. Is that because of "power" of "the lobby" as well?

Or could it be that, like the "lobby" theory, holocaust "revisionism" is discredited because it is crap? :o


Anyone who criticises Israel's actions or argues that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over US Middle East policy ... stands a good chance of being labelled an anti-Semite.

There is no doubt that organizations like the ADL have a tendency of ascribing antisemitic motives to critics of Israeli policy. Some have even gone to the ludicrous extent of labeling nonreligious Jews like Chomsky or Finkelstein "self-hating Jews".

But the rhetorical hyperbole of Israeli apologists does not excuse actual antisemitism, nor does it "prove" the existance of "conspiracy".

When Hitler launched his first Presidential campaign, he too was accused of antisemitism. In response, he would routinely hold up newspaper articles critical of him and regail his audience with how they were "Jewish propaganda".

The more the papers wrote against him, the more "proof" he had of the "Jewish conspiracy" until, eventually, most major papers just stopped writing on him.

Even the KPD, the German communist party, began to quietly remove overtly Jewish names from its candidate list so as to not "taint" it's anti-Hitler messages in the eyes of the public.

You see, the "threat" of the "antisemitism label" is really a double-edged sword. Even with the holocaust, even with historic European antisemitism, people are still warry of believing that Jews could "really" be victims.

The popular conception, after all, is still that "most Jews are rich and powerful".

And so whenever the ADL or like organizations issue a condemnation, the initial reaction by most of the public is to sigh, shake their heads, and move on.

Nobody beyond true zealots and ideologies seriously thinks that Chomsky or Finklestein are "antisemitic"; and nobody really believes that critisizing Israel is "wrong". Remember, less than half of Americans support Israel and something like 25% are "undecided" on the issue.

No, if there was real merit in the "lobby" theory, it would be taken seriously no matter what the ADL said.

It's not.

[Craig]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 09:01 PM
After all, it's much easier to fight a bunch of rich bankers and lobbyists than it is to take on an entire system. But unfortunately convenience does not replace evidence and when it comes to evidence ...you have none.
That is such a straw-man argument. The argument isn't about an all-powerful group of Jewish bankers secretly controlling the US government. That hasn't been claimed here. You're being intellectually lazy.

Goverment policy is driven by money, and Israel is on the receiving end of more US money than any other nation (I believe the figure is around 90 billion dollars since 1949, and grows by a few billion every year). There is a lot of money at stake here, so it's only natural that a lot of money is spent to make sure than the funding continues to flow. That's not conspiracy, that's just good business.

[LSD]

Goverment policy is driven by money, and Israel is on the receiving end of more US money than any other nation (I believe the figure is around 90 billion dollars since 1949, and grows by a few billion every year).

Exactly my point.

Israel recieves more US money every week than the alledged "lobby" can hope to accumulate in a year. Accordingly, the idea that a few million dollars is sufficient to shape a multi-billion dollar policy is absurd.

Obviously there is a capital incentive for the US to prop up the Israeli state, but it's not the paultry "AIPAC lobby" with its "15 million dollar budget", it's the strategic domination of the middle east.

There are simply not enough "rich bankers" and "wealthy Jews" in the US to make up for the staggering cost of supporting Israel. This is money, after all, that could otherwise go to pork-barrel projects and slush fund. Bourgeois politics are all about controling capital, and "90 billion" is a lot of capital!

If there wasn't a direct bourgeois interest in the well being of the American Israeli sattelite, no amount of "lobbying" in the world would make the US support the probably least liked country on earth.


There is a lot of money at stake here, so it's only natural that a lot of money is spent to make sure than the funding continues to flow. That's not conspiracy, that's just good business.

Again, though, you're looking at this backwards.

The US government already has the "money", the question is where do they chose to spend it. And to assert that a few brown envelopes from powerful lobbyists is enough to shape the entire US foreign policy agenda is, frankly, bizzarre.

There's no doubt that dedicated lobbying can changed individual politicians "views", but to control the entire Middle East policy for over a half-century ...that would require a "conspiracy".

[amanondeathrow]

Will it be common on the left or not? That's the question. It's not just the liberals' research paper, but Petras' endorsement - and addition of his own anti-Semitic curliques.

The authors of the essay are not liberals, in the American sense of the world, nor are they any where near the left.

Both are concerned with preserving American hegemony. Realism's anti Semitic roots have influenced their opinions and will continue to do so.

Few leftists have endorsed the article without criticizing it and specifying the importance of the unfair media reaction.


If you want to make that point, make it in relation to somebody who is falsely accused of anti-Semitism. There are plenty of examples of that you could use - and that will continue to be the case as long as Israel remains a useful tool of U.S. foreign policy, to turn around one of your points.

The problem articles that fairly criticize Israel rarely find their way into the pages of a major publication.


You seem to acknowledge the accusation isn't false here ("the article in question clearly illustrates that it is still alive and well"). Why object to the ADL's claims in one of the cases where they are true?

The ADL has not criticized Israel for the right reasons. They issued roughly the same statement they would have if a true leftist article had been in question.

Unless the ADL admits that there is a powerful Israeli lobby, they will be wrong.


What is new, and worth noting and condemning, is the growth of anti-Jewish conspiracy theories and scapegoating among supposed socialists and anti-imperialists.

This article has little to do with leftism considering the authors are on the opposite end of the political spectrum.

Few leftists have voiced support for the article because of its anti Semitism, but because it has attacked Israel.

There is no growing problem on the left of anti Semitism, this is a myth propagated by Alan Dershowits and the ADL. If anything anti Semitism is dying on both sides

[Severian]

Originally posted by Dee's [email protected] 9 2006, 06:46 PM

Will it be common on the left or not? That's the question. It's not just the liberals' research paper, but Petras' endorsement - and addition of his own anti-Semitic curliques.

The authors of the essay are not liberals, in the American sense of the world, nor are they any where near the left.

Both are concerned with preserving American hegemony.
OK, but beside my point. Petras is definitely part of "the left", a self-described socialist and opponent of imperialism who influences a whole layer of leftists including some posters on this board. That's why the Militant ran this article.

(BTW, liberals are also "concerned with preserving American hegemony".)


Few leftists have endorsed the article without criticizing it and specifying the importance of the unfair media reaction.

Anti-semites of the right also "specify the importance of the unfair media reaction." As LSD just pointed out, it's a standard trope of Holocaust deniers; really all kinds of fascists and ultrarightists routinely rail against media bias that is supposedly trying to silence them - with or without the implication that Jews are responsible for this bias. So this is hardly a point in your favor.


The problem articles that fairly criticize Israel rarely find their way into the pages of a major publication.

So, you seem to be saying, this "major publication" - maybe "major publications" in general? - would rather run an anti-Semitic article than an anti-imperialist article. And yet somehow you feel the need to defend the publication of the anti-Semitic article. Curiouser and curiouser.


Unless the ADL admits that there is a powerful Israeli lobby, they will be wrong.

Oh! So the problem is not the ADL's support for the Israeli apartheid state. It's not the ADL's pretense that all opposition to that apartheid state is anti-Semitic!

The problem is....they don't share your view of the role of U.S. Jews in U.S. politics! Until they share your views, they're not allowed to denounce even articles which you admit are anti-Semitic!

How Orwellian.

And BTW, "Israeli lobby" is transparently a codeword. AIPAC is not funded by the Israeli government; it is funded by citizens and residents of the U.S, mostly Jews. It is not Israeli votes that Hillary Clinton is hoping for. Et cetera.

It'd be more honest if you'd say "Jewish lobby".


Few leftists have voiced support for the article because of its anti Semitism, but because it has attacked Israel.

Bullshit. That's like all the clueless posters on this board who said workersunity was restricted for "criticizing Israel." Walt and Mearsheimer - and more importantly, Petras - have not "attacked Israel".

They have attacked Jews in the U.S., claiming they have hijacked U.S. foreign policy.

Anyone who has "voiced support" for that article is aiding and abetting anti-Semitism, and I really don't much care what their motive is.

And even if there was something valid in it as well, that's no excuse for praising an anti-Semitic article!

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Dee's Nuts
The problem articles that fairly criticize Israel rarely find their way into the pages of a major publication.

Yes they do....all the time.

Only a few months ago, the Independent, a "major publication" in Britain, ran an 8 page pullout and the subject discussed in this pullout was, low and behold, the crimes of Ariel Sharon. I think I may have kept it, so if you like, I'll try to find it and I'll scan the picture of the cover for you.

The Independent is the only "major publication" I read because it happens to be the paper my mother buys; and as a paper, it regularly publishes pieces criticising the Israeli Government....shit, on May 8 2006 it had an Editorial & Opinion piece entitled Israel's 'peace plan' is a road to nowhere.

Now there's probably a "lobby" in Britain that is, proportionately, about the same size as its American counterpart....so how do you account for the fact that "major publications" here are able to sidestep around the "powerful lobby"?

Now, I don't read the American press, but if the American press publishes less critical articles on Israel than the European press, then there's probably a far simpler explanation than the idea that the "Israeli/Jewish lobby" is somehow, despite its minor funding, managing to block criticism of Israel. And this reason, of course, is Europe's relationship to the Middle East.

The European Imperialist powers have always been a little reluctant to support Israel; after all, there's no oil there and therefore, they are required to direct their attentions towards neighbouring Middle Eastern countries.

America on the other hand, unlike Europe, has oil....which means it is somewhat easier for the American Government to formulate a different Imperialist policy.

Same Imperialist interests, just different Imperialist policies.

This, of course, would easily explain why the American media was "pro-Israel"; after all, the native media nearly always sides the Government. So just like when the American media didn't bother to report what was going on in East Timor, likewise, whilst Israel remains an important outpost for U.S. Imperialism, the media will decline from attacking Israel.

Neither the "Indonesian lobby" and/or the "Israeli lobby" theory is required to explain any of this. Rather, it's just another example of the American capitalist class shaping popular perception in order to help facilitate their Imperial plans.

"Jewish lobbies" are really insignificant organisations that get far more attention than they deserve. I mean, Swansea City Council probably has about as much "political influence" as they do. :lol:

[Emperor Ronald Reagan]

Originally posted by LSD+--> (LSD)Israel recieves more US money every week than the alledged "lobby" can hope to accumulate in a year. Accordingly, the idea that a few million dollars is sufficient to shape a multi-billion dollar policy is absurd.[/b]

Now you're being myopic. That is more than enough money to use as a weapon to bring down perceived anti-Israel congressional candidates (or anyone who brings their privileged status to the spotlight) and reward candidates who support their agenda.


Mearsheimer and Walt
"All the Jews in America, from coast to coast, gathered to oust Percy. And the American politicians �� those who hold public positions now, and those who aspire �� got the message."

Those are Thomas Dine's (the head of AIPAC at the time) words by the way - not mine.

Like I said, your obdurate ignorance on the history of the Lobby is incredible. The overwhelming bulk of evidence supporting this thesis is beyond dispute by any fair and open-minded person. Please, go read a book.

[Jormungand]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 05:40 PM
However, I do think that we have to be completely unstinting in our oppsition to Zionism.

Israel is illegitimate and it should be "wiped off the map".

:)
Definitely.

[amanondeathrow]

OK, but beside my point. Petras is definitely part of "the left", a self-described socialist and opponent of imperialism who influences a whole layer of leftists including some posters on this board. That's why the Militant ran this article.

Anti Semitism is not a growing problem on the left. Your just buying in rightist propaganda caused by dissent over US support for Israel.

The vast majority of anti Israel activists on the left have no problem for Jews and cringe at the implication.

Focusing on this so called problem only draws attention away from the more important issue of silence over the Israeli lobby, which this article again revealed.

There have always been misguided leftist leaders, but they are not the norm.


Anti-semites of the right also "specify the importance of the unfair media reaction." As LSD just pointed out, it's a standard trope of Holocaust deniers; really all kinds of fascists and ultrarightists routinely rail against media bias that is supposedly trying to silence them - with or without the implication that Jews are responsible for this bias. So this is hardly a point in your favor.

Rightists also use violence and propaganda to achieve victory, should we not do the same?

There is no reason not to analyze a reaction to an article and use the findings to better understand the current state of affairs.

How is this not a useful tool that can be applied in the current situation?



So, you seem to be saying, this "major publication" - maybe "major publications" in general? - would rather run an anti-Semitic article than an anti-imperialist article. And yet somehow you feel the need to defend the publication of the anti-Semitic article. Curiouser and curiouser.

I have never defended the two reactionary authors of their essay, in fact I have criticized their thesis.

All I am saying is that your conclusion that the article reveals a growing anti-Semitism in the anti Israel movement, is wrong and counter productive to argue.

I would have much rather seen an article from an anti imperialist perspective, but that’s not what was published, so we must analyze what we have.


Oh! So the problem is not the ADL's support for the Israeli apartheid state. It's not the ADL's pretense that all opposition to that apartheid state is anti-Semitic!

I admit I worded my statement badly. I should have included these demands and specified that the Israeli lobby is not the most important issue related to Israel.

However, the ADL still refuse to admit the existence of the powerful lobby and they should be criticized for it.


The problem is....they don't share your view of the role of U.S. Jews in U.S. politics! Until they share your views, they're not allowed to denounce even articles which you admit are anti-Semitic!

My problem is that they denounce the article simply because it attacks the Israeli lobby, they do not specify that there is a lobby but that it is just far less powerful.

This reveals where their interests lie and opens them up to criticism.


And BTW, "Israeli lobby" is transparently a codeword. AIPAC is not funded by the Israeli government; it is funded by citizens and residents of the U.S, mostly Jews. It is not Israeli votes that Hillary Clinton is hoping for. Et cetera.

It'd be more honest if you'd say "Jewish lobby".

Of course it is an Israeli lobby, there are many non Jewish supporters and its policy usually revolves around Israel.

[Emperor Ronald Reagan]

And BTW, "Israeli lobby" is transparently a codeword. AIPAC is not funded by the Israeli government; it is funded by citizens and residents of the U.S, mostly Jews. It is not Israeli votes that Hillary Clinton is hoping for. Et cetera.

It'd be more honest if you'd say "Jewish lobby".

I don't see the merit in that designation. The purpose of the lobby is to help Israel, not Jews per se.

[Craig]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 10:20 PM
Israel recieves more US money every week than the alledged "lobby" can hope to accumulate in a year. Accordingly, the idea that a few million dollars is sufficient to shape a multi-billion dollar policy is absurd.

Obviously there is a capital incentive for the US to prop up the Israeli state, but it's not the paultry "AIPAC lobby" with its "15 million dollar budget", it's the strategic domination of the middle east.
You incorrectly assume the "US government" is a monolithic institution. It is not. It is a network of competing interests and factions.

You also fail to understand how corrupt officials convert the treasury into their own private wealth. They can't simply walk into the vault and fill their pockets. They sell their influence. They sell billions of dollars in national wealth (in the form of government contracts and aid) for hundreds of thousands in bribes, kickbacks, and comfy corporate jobs.

So, yes, the lobbying efforts may seem paltry compared to the vast sums of cash that the government hands out, but you underestimate the pettiness and greed of the guys that control the flows. 15 millions dollars can buy plenty of congressmen.

When you combine those economic factors with the history of anti-semitism and what it means to be labelled an "anti-semite," then it's easy to see how weak, corrupt politicians will take the cash and keep their mouth shut. It's not conspiracy at all.

[Craig]

Oh, and by the way, Nazis wore shoes too, so if you don't want to be a nazi you better go barefoot.

And they breathed air. And they used language to communicate. We better not do any of that!

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 12:27 PM
Oh, and by the way, Nazis wore shoes too, so if you don't want to be a Nazi you better go barefoot.

And they breathed air. And they used language to communicate. We better not do any of that!
What is the purpose of this diversion from the thread topic?

The wearing of shoes, breathing of air, and use of language (except for specialized anti-semitic terminology) were not fundamental elements of Nazi ideology.

The implication of your post is that we are all "knee-jerk" anti-Nazis who mindlessly oppose anything said or done by Nazis.

Well...yes. ;)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Craig]

What is the purpose of this diversion from the thread topic?
Maybe it was flippant and sarcastic, but I don't think it was a diversion. There are numerous references in this thread that unfairly compare the mindless anti-Jewish rhetoric of neo-nazis with intelligent criticism of pro-Israel lobbyists. I'm too lazy to go back and quote them all.


The implication of your post is that we are all "knee-jerk" anti-Nazis who mindlessly oppose anything said or done by Nazis.
So wait, is it on-topic or is it a diversion? Make up your mind! :)

Anyhow, I have one more thing to contribute. Anti-semitism is probably the most taboo of all forms of racism in the west. To many people, it is the embodiment of evil itself. To be publicly accused of it is like being accused of molesting children. People panic when accused and will often go out of their way to disprove it, no matter how spurious the claim. Even when disproven it hangs like a cloud over the accused. Lots of people here are talking like they don't understand this point.

[Emperor Ronald Reagan]

Why get off your intellectual duff and attempt to refute serious, factual criticisms of the Israeli Lobby when you can just tar and feather critics with the "anti-Semite" taboo?

[Severian]

There's been an update on this article. (http://www.themilitant.com/2006/7024/702436.html) The meat of it:

Now let’s do what Fierling suggests, take a look at a wider selection of views on the matter among the middle-class left.

The Communist Party USA tries to have it both ways with regard to the Walt/Mearsheimer paper. An article by Susan Webb in the May 25 issue of the People’s Weekly World, which reflects the views of the CPUSA, praises the paper for helping to “open up mainstream discussion” on the Bush administration’s policies in the Middle East (meaning discussion to help elect a Democratic majority in this year’s U.S. congressional elections and a Democratic White House in 2008). Referring to “well-financed right-wing Jewish groups,” Webb says, “The power these groups exercise in U.S. political life, including in electing or defeating candidates, has been written about and documented in progressive publications.” At the same time, Webb adds that “loose characterizations” of these organizations by Walt and Mearsheimer “have an unpleasant ring for many Jewish readers.”

An article in the May 19 issue of the Socialist Worker, which reflects the views of the International Socialist Organization, talks about “defending Mearsheimer and Walt’s description of the Israel lobby from Israel boosters,” while offering a friendly critique on a number of points.

An article in the April 8 issue of In These Times by Salim Muwakkil, a senior editor of the social-democratic publication, says the “furious response from critics” of the Walt/Mearsheimer article is “an eerie confirmation of the paper’s point” on the domination of U.S. foreign policy by the “Israel Lobby.”

And the June 9 issue of CounterPunch, self-described as “America’s Best Political Newsletter” and edited by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St.Clair, says the following in advertising an article on the subject: “Read how U.S. presidents from Wilson, through FDR to Truman were manipulated by the Zionist lobby; how Israel bent LBJ, Reagan and Clinton to its purpose; how Bush’s White House has been the West Wing of the Israeli government; how Washington’s revolving doors send full-time Israeli lobbyists from think-tanks to the National Security Council and the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans.”

Even Noam Chomsky who criticizes Walt and Mearsheimer in his article “The Israel Lobby?” tips his hat to his academic colleagues for taking a “courageous” though not a very convincing stand.

Space is the only limitation in citing more such quotations. The main thing these individuals and groups do is not promoting anti-Semitism, which many do, even if willy-nilly. They all try to slide around the reality that the U.S. imperialist bourgeoisie is advancing its own interests in the Middle East, regardless of Tel Aviv’s interests. They try to skirt the fact that working people have to overthrow the rule of this capitalist class and replace it with a government of workers and farmers in order to end war and national oppression of Palestinians or any other peoples.

I could add that a fair number of posters in this thread have been similar examples.

(Incidentally, if anyone really wants a refutation of Walt & Mearsheimer's claims...here ya go. (http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/002636.html) One of a number of people who've pointed out their paper is full of shoddy scholarship. But really, I have a very limited interest in debating it. People who believe in the vast power of the poorly defined "Israeli Lobby" obviously just want to believe it.)

[Dreckt]

Remember that the US has over 750 military bases all over the world - these needs money to function too. Now, have anyone ever heard this on American TV or in American newspapers? That's a conspiracy. ;)

[CCCPneubauten]

I know that some one here is a closet Anti-Semite, LSD is going to get them i a corner and they are going to scream 'blood libel' this will be great.

[CubaSocialista]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 05:11 PM
I know that some one here is a closet Anti-Semite, LSD is going to get them i a corner and they are going to scream 'blood libel' this will be great.
I am a Hardcore Communist and Socialist. My ethnic background merits no need or justification for me to be insulted or dishonored. I am soft-spoken and wise, but when someone brings up the "Jew-controlled media (or whatever)" theory, I am more and more inclined to mercilessly bash their skull in.

I am no Zionist. I think Zionism is detrimental to Jews worldwide.

I am a Communist. I have an ethnic background. I will not see anyone judge me or anyone else by that background, or any other background: it's reactionary.

So distinguishing "Jewish influence" or holding Israel accountable to tougher standards than other nations is indeed antisemitism. As well, we know, antisemitism is no vestigial organ within modern capitalism and its social arrangements.

[praxis1966]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 7 2006, 08:00 PM
Praxis 1966,

Ariel Sharon has been dead since December, 2005.

Perhaps you can give us an updated version of your story. But don't quote Sharon, he has been dead since last year.
The point I was attempting to make had nothing to do with Ariel Sharon, it had to do with Christian theological motivations for supporting Israel in order to erradicate the Palestinians living on the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip. This hasn't changed since the changing of the guard in the Israeli parliament, and likely will never.

Since fundamentalist Christians see the return of the Jews to Palestine as the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy, this whole business has little, if anything, to do with Sharon in particular. I thought that would have been obvious, but I guess I was wrong.