well its official, pro israel lobby biggest and baddest

[brad]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25844-2003Mar14.html

[andyfox]

"if it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq we would not be doing this."

How does this differ from Saddam Hussein's contention that the impending war is a zionist production?

[brad]

all i know is people like perle et al. who authored report in 99 to invade iraq and in power now are all super pro israel.

you just cant dispute that.

note that im not even going so far as to say that this congressman and others are right. but they could be right and i think they have a right to make their case without immediately being blackballed.

notice how theres almost a total news blackout about israeli involvement in coming war?

i mean on a scale of 1-10 in terms of national security i would put coming war at a 10 for israel and maybe a 2 or 3 for the US.

[B-Man]

How does this differ from Saddam Hussein's contention that the impending war is a zionist production?

Good point, Andy.

Also, how is it any different from Trent Lott's comments a few months ago? Where is the outrage from the democrats? Sure, Pelosi and a few others offered some criticism, but there was nowhere near the outrage there should have been.

[B-Man]

M hit it on the head, Brad. The titles to your posts frequently have nothing to do with what is contained in them.

[B-Man]

[brad]

so theres no pro israel lobby in the US? are you on drugs?

or do u think israeli and US interests totally coincide?

[B-Man]

so theres no pro israel lobby in the US? are you on drugs?

That was not the title of your post.

[Boris]

Well it's different because Saddam Hussein is dictator and as a result doesn't really care on whit about his constintuency. Moran on the other hand is an elected official so presumably he is sensitive to the various interest groups that try to sway his vote. I don't think Saddam's direct line is the palm pilot of any lobbyists representing Jewish and/or Israeli interests.

[brad]

hey the guy got stripped of all power for suggesting that the pro israel lobby was in favor of war in iraq (which is obvious as iraq is big threat to israel).

doesnt that denote power?

[Boris]

How is Moran's remark in any way similiar to what Trent Lott said?

[B-Man]

How is Moran's remark in any way similiar to what Trent Lott said?

They both made outrageous comments which were offensive to minorities. Lott's comment showed that he was either (a) a racist, or (b) an idiot for making a statement he had to know would cause an uproar (he also had made similar statements in the past).

Likewise, Moran made the typical-of-anti-semites charge that Jews secretly control world affairs; like Lott, he has made similar comments in the past, and I believe he is anti-semitic. If he's not anti-semitic, then Moran is a moron for creating a pattern of comments which will make people think that, and ultimately hurt is career (unless maybe he is trying to win terrorist votes).

[brad]

what r u doing in this thread boris? r u jewish? we may have to ban u?

[B-Man]

First of all, his quote referred to the Jewish lobby, not the pro-Israel lobby, which is not exactly the same.

Secondly, he made an outrageous statement that has no basis in fact. He didn't resign his leadership post because what he said was true (it isn't), he resigned because he made an offensive statement. There is a difference between (a) Israel's governement/lobbyists being pro-war, and (b) the U.S. going to war because of the "jewish" lobby.

Like you, he apparently likes to make outrageous statements that have no basis in fact, and this one pissed off a lot of people.

Let me guess, Brad, you like him because he likes conspiracy theories...

[brad]

you cant escape the fact that the main proponents of this war (wolfawitz, perleman, etc.) are jewish.

thats a fact.

given the history of israeli american duplicity i think theres nothing crazy about questioning motives.

what i really object to is dismissing things out of hand with no regard for the facts.

because if the congressman is right, he should be heard and the idea explored.

if hes wrong, he should be heard and the idea explored and shown to be wrong.

[John Cole]

B-Man,

brad has promised to entitle all of his posts "Hand to Talk About" in the future. /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

John

[B-Man]

you cant escape the fact that the main proponents of this war (wolfawitz, perleman, etc.) are Jewish.

Last I checked, none of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Rice, or Powell were Jewish.

Are there Jews that support the war? Yes.

Are there Jews against the war? Yes.

Is Sharon's government for the war? Yes.

None of that proves anything, let alone that the U.S. is going to war because of the Jewish lobby. There is no cause and effect relationship. When you have some facts that prove otherwise, please let me know.

[MMMMMM]

brad,

The title you posted is like a conclusion or summary. Since you provided no path of reasoning for the reader to follow, do you think your conclusion belongs in the post title?

The article itself doesn't conclude with anything like what you titled your post (I'm not evaluating your conclusion here, I'm just pointing out the gulf between content and post title/conclusion).

and..."well it's official" ???;-)

[andyfox]

Let me try again: how is what this person said, that there wouldn't be a war if not for jewish support for it, any different than the antisemitic remark of Saddam Hussein saying that the war was fulfilling a zionist agenda?

[andyfox]

All politicians are hypocrites, democrats included. Remember, 100% of the democrats voted against Bill Clinton's impeachment. Senator Byrd admitted that it didn't matter whether the charges were impeachable or not, the democrats were going to vote against, period. If the democrats can go to the wall for the likes of Clinton, nothing else should really be too surprising. The only thing as disgusting is a republican.

[andyfox]

And some of them are black too (Powell, Rice). So what?

The congressman said the "jewish community." He said nothing about the Israeli lobby.

Who's Perleman?

[andyfox]

Both are anti-semitic remarks. The congressman said that jews are responsible for the war. Hussein has said the same thing.

[Parmenides]

You are correct that the statement is anti-Semitic.
The Democrats produced the same result (the removal from a leadership position) with much less fanfare and matter of factness. I think all politicians are hypocrites. So you may have a point.

Lott was a politician of immense power in a State with an recent apartheid history. This latest guy will soon have his son-in-law be of the Jewish faith. I thnk a shade of difference exists here.

[Chris Alger]

I can't read your link but the thesis that pro-Israeli Jews exercise disproportionate influence over the US government is an old canard, a variant of the conspiracy theories. In this case, it's especially ridiculous because (1) US support for Israel is strategic rather than being grounded in an ideological commitment ot Zionism, evidenced by the fairly modest support Israel received until after 1967; (2) the push for war in Iraq is strategic, part of the plans that have been kicking around for more than 10 years calling ago for unfettered US dominence over key strategic reagions; (3) many prominent war supporters are either not Jewish or not close to the Zionist lobby or both (Powell, Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney, GF Will, Wm. Kristol); and (4) Jews are generally less enthusiastic about the war than non-Jews. A poll cited by today's NY times indicates that Jewish support for the war is lower than non-Jewish support (62% vs. 52%). In fact, in the US I suspect you'll find the most fanatically pro-Israel anti-Iraq attitudes within the Christian right; (5) the views of handful of Likudniks (Perle, Wolfowitz) in and close to the adminsitration a quite a bit further to the right, regarding Israel, than the mainstream Jewish lobby and most Israelis.

[Robk]

www.opinionjournal.com (http://www.opinionjournal.com), yesterday

The Plot Thickens
Yesterday we noted that Pat Buchanan and Edward Said, along with others such as Rep. Jim Moran and David Duke, have been peddling the idea that the impending liberation of Iraq is the result of a conspiracy by a Zionist "cabal," as Buchanan calls it, that is "colluding with Israel" to "ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America's interests." The Economist notes that such paranoid bigotry in the service of "peace" is nothing new: "In the 1930s, when anti-Semitism was both pervasive and respectable in America, Charles Lindbergh and his America-Firsters blamed Jewish interests for trying to drag America into a pointless war with Germany."

We were puzzled, though, by a seeming contradiction in the Buchanan/Said/Moran/Duke theory, which holds that (a) war in Iraq will harm America's interests by inflaming the Arab and Muslim worlds and spurring more terrorism, and (b) the cabal is pursuing such a war because it is in Israel's interests. How, we asked, would such a conflagration be good for Israel, which would be right in the thick of it? Well, a helpful reader answered our question:

What is obvious is that they [the Israelis] will use the resulting chaos as a pretext to get rid of the Palestinians, driving them out of the country into Jordan or Egypt. Who will say or do anything to stop them when the region is totally destabilized and a mess?

It's obvious! And our reader isn't the only one who's figured it out; the Tulane Hullabaloo quotes "adjunct Tulane professor and LaRouche Democrat Marty Rowland" as saying much the same thing. For those of you whose sense of the obvious is not as keenly developed as that of our interlocutor, however, let us spell out the assumptions underlying this theory:

That the disastrous outcome of war in Iraq--"chaos," with the region "totally destabilized and a mess"--is foreordained.


That Israel and its co-conspirators, some of whom hold subcabinet-level positions in the Bush administration, know this, but the rest of the administration and the majority of Congress have no clue and thus have been duped by the Zionist plotters into thinking the war has a significant chance of success.


That although the whole region will be engulfed in "chaos," "totally destabilized and a mess," Israel will have no problem managing the forcible relocation of more than three million people, many of them heavily armed with guns and explosives, all the while defending its borders against the hostile states and terrorist groups that surround it.
Now, we know what you're thinking. (Of course we know; our Zionist masters told us.) How is it that the cabal members have managed to fool virtually the entire political leadership of the United States, while guys like Pat Buchanan, David Duke, Ed Said and the LaRouchies can see right through their little scheme? Well, think about it. If a discredited figure like Buchanan or Duke blows the whistle on the plot, no one is going to believe what he's saying. Obviously these guys are Zionist agents themselves, covering up the conspiracy by putting it out in plain sight in a way that no one will believe it!

There's one other man who is crucial to the success of the Zionist cabal's efforts: Saddam Hussein. He has spent 12 years defying U.N. resolutions and building weapons of mass destruction, creating the rationale for invasion, and who benefits? Israel! Obviously he too is a tool of the Zionists.

You really have to think this through to understand what a devilishly clever plot the Zionists have hatched. They have managed to turn their own worst enemies--in Europe, in the Muslim world, in American universities--into defenders of Saddam Hussein, who is actually a Zionist agent! Sound unlikely? No more so than killing a suicide bomber.

[andyfox]

It would stand to reason that American Jews are less likely to be in favor of the war than non-Jews, since a relatively higher percentage of Jews than non-Jews are Democrats, and the polls consistently show that Democrats are less inclined to favor the war than Republicans.

[John Cole]

I'm stunned to find that this writer finds a way to lump together Buchannan, Edward Said, David Duke, and Moran. I'm surprised he didn't find a way to get Louis Farrakhan into the group.

[Chris Alger]

Good post. Two points:

(1) Although "transfer" has increasingly become a darkly legitimate topic in Israel, I doubt that Israel has any plan to use the war as cover for forcible relocation. I mean, to where? Jordan? It can't happen, not en masse. I think the transfer discussion serves to legitimize a more extreme end of the specturm of potential alternatives. I think it's also clear that what Israel is "up to" is maintaining the status quo for as long as possible -- Israel's default strategy since 1948 --and pursuing creeping annexation, with the long-run goal an isolating the occupied Palestinians into disconnected cantons, and then selling it as some kind of great compromise. Except for the most extreme elements in Israel, this has been the basic premise of a likely denouement ever since early 1970's, as reflected in the Allon plan and other proposals emanating from Tel Aviv over the years.

(2) Moran and Buchanan are dopes, and Duke is a monster, but there's a kernal of common sense to Buachanan's isolationism that is generally lost on most educated people that follow the news: most people have no interest in the obvious goals of US foregin policy. If you weed out all the nonsense of self defense and liberation, in the end you have the obvious interest of maintaining a stable investment and trade climate and projecting military force to help ensure them. But while "stability" is vital to institutions with trillions invested abroad, the ups and downs of states and political movements within them doesn't much affect the lives of workers and consumers to such an extent that they'd willingly assume the risks of foreign intervention. The knee-jerk condmenation of isolationism is another example of using the WWII template to justify everything abroad, just as Chamberlain at Munich is used to justify every war.

[brad]

'(5) the views of handful of Likudniks (Perle, Wolfowitz) in and close to the adminsitration a quite a bit further to the right, regarding Israel, than the mainstream Jewish lobby and most Israelis.
'

afaik this is who everbody is talking about. the only reason jews in general are brought into it is because when these crazies are above criticism because of anti-semitism shield.

[Chris Alger]

Said and the antiwar left appears to be the actual target of the original WSJ article referenced in this follow-up editorial. An old technique: Klansman Duke thinks the war is a Jewish plot, Said opposes the war, therefore Said is like Duke, having at the very least has impaired judgment because of his "hatred" for America, which isn't in evidence but can be safely presumed, readers are assured. These crude propaganda pieces don't try to win converts as much as the help shore up the emotions of war supporters by helping them to pigeon-hole their opponents as totalitarians and hatemongers.

[Parmenides]

I agree with you.

[Cyrus]

"The thesis that pro-Israeli Jews exercise disproportionate influence over the US government is an old canard, a variant of the conspiracy theories."

Anti-semites of the Left and the Right support crazy and unfounded theories about Jews dictating American foreign policy. That this can be easily refuted as hogwash is not in question. It is however true that the Jewish-American lobby has been exercising disproportionate influence in shaping American policy towards the Middle East and in particular towards Israel. To reject this fact is an exercise in denial.

"In this case, it's especially ridiculous because US support for Israel is strategic rather than being grounded in an ideological commitment to Zionism."

I rarely heard outisde the lunatic fringes the argument that the United States ideologically support Zionism. No, the various American administrations have provided unquestioning and steadfast suppport towards Israel for pragmatic and political reasons, ie the pro-Israeli PACs' power, rather han ideological.

I would very much like to have someone point out the strategic interests that shape America's support for Israel. Any time someone tries to do that he reverts to various "moral arguments" about having to support "the only democracy in the Middle East" and all that.

I'm a moral person myself, I like to believe. But this is about strategic interests. I'm all ears.

[Chris Alger]

"It is however true that the Jewish-American lobby has been exercising disproportionate influence in shaping American policy towards the Middle East and in particular towards Israel. To reject this fact is an exercise in denial."

Here's my take. Sorry about the length.

Unless you're referring to a very indirect "influence in shaping American policy" I disagree. In fact, I'm not sure what you mean by the "Jewish-American lobby."

1. The media. A few groups like ADL and Camera exert some influence on the tone of media coverage and a handful of Jewish pundits (Safire, Zuckerman) that are rapidly anti-Palestinian. On the whole, however, reporting about Israel isn't much worse than reporting on any other US client. S. Vietnam, Iran under the Shah, and Duarte's El Salvador all received the same absurdly favorable treatment in the mainstream press as Israel does. This last point proves that the "Jewish" lobby isn't determinative, and that concentrating on it won't do any good. There's probably more outright chauvanism (Israel has done and can do no wrong), but it's hard to tell how much of this is influenced by Jewish supporters, how much springs from incontrovertible facts that make Israel easy to portray sympathetically and its enemies otherwise, and how much of this is the icing on top of a presumptively pro-Israel cake. There are a lot of pro-Israel Jewish zealots, but a lot of Jews also have serious misgivings about Israeli policy. Rabbi Lerner and the Tikuun crowd are much more critical of Israel than the (vaguely anti-Semitic) Christian right.

I suspect that the effect of the pro-Israel media groups is to intimidate a few people with less courage than Ted Turner, who made the obvious comment that Israel is also guilty of terrorism. As for the punidts and neocons, I don't see any difference between the pro-Israel bias of the Jewish ones from the non-Jewish ones. Overall, one can't explain the media's prostration to Israel's official line as a result of the American-Jewish lobby.

2. Congress AIPAC and some smaller groups throw around a lot of money for Congressional races, and viciously target anyone they perceive as anti-Israel. This has a real effect on who gets elected in a handful of races, but has nowhere near the overall effect of the 90%+ "safe seats" that are deteremined by partisan apportionment. Further, Congress doesn't make foreign policy, the White House does after consultation with "the people" (who work for the agencies, corporations and banks with a direct stake in US policy).

3. The actual link There isn't any discernable nexus between the American-Jewish lobby and the actual making of policy. The lobby can do symbolic, window dressing things like get Congress to authorize a resolution to condemning Arafat, or to modestly increase an appropriation that originated from the White House. But when the White House really wants to throw its weight around, as elder Bush did with the $10 billion in loan guarantees, or when Carter essentially ordered Begin to surrender the Sinai, you don't see the lobby having much ability to resist. (I guess the counterargument relates the re-elction fortunes of these two, but I don't buy it).

4. The history US history of supporting Israel doesn't track alongside a growing influence of the Jewish lobby. Instead, it tracks with the recognition that Israel can serve US strategic interests in the region. The US was essentially supportive but lukewarm toward Israel until Israel proved its military might in 1967. After that, US support began in earnest. US deference to Israeli wishes has grown with Israel's military strength, not with the power of its supporters in the US.

5. Relative power The American-Jewish influence is miniscule compared to that of the transnational corporations, especially the oil companies and arms manufacturers.

"I would very much like to have someone point out the strategic interests that shape America's support for Israel. Any time someone tries to do that he reverts to various "moral arguments" about having to support "the only democracy in the Middle East" and all that. I'm a moral person myself, I like to believe. But this is about strategic interests. I'm all ears."

Israel provides military might that aids poltical stability in a volatile yet stategically vital region. By "political stabilty," I don't mean on the irrelevant street level such as the absence of demonstrations, riots, refugees and popular distress, all tolerable and even welcome to a degree, I mean geographic dominance by regimes that are pro-business and likely to remain in power, and a the presence of a deterrent to any threat to such regimes. Israel is a regional superpower. If necessary, it can quickly annihilate any military force in the region.

Military power tends to guarantee a minimum of political stability, which is important because poltical instability acts as a tax on foreign investment while stability guarantees markets and profits. The Bechtel Corporation, for example, builds and maintains huge engineering projects throughout the Middle East through multiyear contracts that cost billions. They would cost more and there would be fewer of them if Bechtel had reason to worry that a coup or change of heart by its client government were more likely. Multiply Bechtel's interests a hundred fold, maybe a thousand fold, and you have some idea what's at stake. Think how interests like these compare with ADL-inspired letter campaigns by Zionist cranks raving about the "pro-PLO" media.

There are also direct taxes caused by lack of predictability. Companies doing business abroad have to buy insurance against events such as contract repudiation, property confiscation and currency incontrovertibility. They have to bribe local officials and subcontractors. Stability over time means lower costs for such transactions. Stability, like time, means money, and real power always relates to wealth.

There are more direct benefits to the US (narrowly defined) as well. When the US wanted to arm Iran's military after the Shah was overthrown (ala Chile after Allende), it used Isreal as a conduit (before there were any hostages for which to "trade" these arms). When the White House wanted to arm and train the Guatemalan military but couldn't because of its horrific human rights abuses, it used Israel as a conduit. When the US wants to see how well its latest military hardware works in actual battefield conditions, it looks to Israel, more or less permantly at war with someone. During last April's massacres in the West Bank, I heard that US forces were on hand observing the urban guerilla combat in Jenin and Nablus, something the mainstream press at the time didn't mention. But sure enough, on NPR this very morning, there's a report on how the US is more prepared for urban fighting in Baghdad thanks to what it learned from Israel last spring. Finally, there's direct military action. This is dicey for obvious reasons, and Israel is certainly a loose cannon that causes modest distress in the State Department. But when it works at all, it works wonderfully because Israel takes all the risk and political heat, and the US benefits. When Israel bombed Iraq's Osirik reactor in 1981, the US could privately applaud while offering up a pious speech criticizing the raid for violating the sanctity of international law, etc. US policy makers went to bed on June 5, 1967 thinking that Nasser was a real headache. By lunch the next day, the headache was about as evident as Egypt's air force.

Of course, Israel is also the cause of much hatred and anguish, but this has proved mostly containable with minimal US military intervention. There's a good argument that Israel is likely to keep the region simmering until it explodes, and that any rational superpower would do something about this. It's a good argument, but I think the imperatives of short-term planning are a more persuasive explanation for the "irrational" aspects of the US-Israel policy than the exaggerated power of a "Jewish-American" lobby.

[Cyrus]

Well!.. That's the first time someone disagrees with me about this issue without calling me a lousy anti-semite or worse. Pinch me.

Thanks for the lengthy response. Here's my take, a bit more brief.

Israel's strategic importance to the United States first : it doesn't exist. Trying to argue otherwise is, well, a little silly. ("Israel provides military might that aids poltical stability in a volatile yet stategically vital region" come on!.. Israel's presence alone, not to mention its beligerence, have caused the biggest instability in that area since the Crusades.) Israel represents but a very small portion of land and a tiny portion of the populace in the greater Near and Middle East area. The land is "astride" no important military or economic area whatsoever. On the other hand, the hundreds of millions of Arabs stretch from the Atlantic to the Arabian Sea and they are "astride" a barrelful of oil.

Accepting that Israel, beyond any moral or humanitarian consideration, and strictly on geostrategical terms, deserves little support from a superpower such as the United States, we can examine why on earth does that superpower support it like it does. You are asking for a "more persuasive explanation for the irrational aspects of the US-Israel policy" and they ARE irrational alright, but then you pre-meptively dismiss that this can be due to "the exaggerated power of a "Jewish-American" lobby".

Don't start with the media, start with local and national politicians. Pro-Israel PACs will not allow a pip of criticism against official Israeli policy. While it is true that quite a lot of Jewish-Americans are critical of Israel's policies towards the Palestinians, the most vocal and the most influential are the hawks and the hard-liners, who are not, by the way, necessarily Meir Kahane acolytes. A sample of the power pro-Israeli PACs as tasted by an Illinois GOP congressman can be found in "They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1556520735/qid=1049144014/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-6974058-9883046?v=glance&s=books). I don't have handy the data of money pouting into the pols' coffers through the PACs.

You say that Congress doesn't make foreign policy, the White House does, however Congress will not allow thw Hite House to stray too much into "controversial policies" such as being even-handed towards Israel and the Palestinians. George Bush Sr, along with his man Baker, tried to press the Israelis a wee bit, look how far that got them.

History shows that the U.S. has provided unqualified and unquestioning support to Israel, in economic and military terms through five decades. In world forums such as the U.N., America has refused to ever sanction Israel despite its numerous and gross violations of specific Security Council resolutions.

You are saying that "The US was essentially supportive but lukewarm toward Israel until Israel proved its military might in 1967. After that, US support began in earnest." So you are saying that after Israel attacked in 1967, the U.S. decided to side with the aggressor! And for no solid geostrategic reason. Must've been due to guilt. "US deference to Israeli wishes has grown with Israel's military strength, not with the power of its supporters in the US." Not true. If you doubt that Israel has always been the strongest military power in the Middle East (and has been the strongest nation than all its opponents combined for quite some time now), then you ought to check out "The War for Palestine" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521794765/qid=1049144684/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-6974058-9883046?v=glance&s=books) edited by Avi Shlaim, that revisits the 1948 conflict and "The Iron Wall" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393321126/qid=1049144837/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/103-6974058-9883046) that traces Israeli policy from the time of Zabotinsky up until the Israeli PM's assassination. I have recommended those books before.

Now the media: Yes, the mainstream media has given Israel pretty much a free ride in its conduct towards Arabs and towards Palestinians in particular. The choice of words and the choice of footage and the search for "balance" when Israel attacks, all these are routine. When Lebanon was invaded in 1982, things changed a little but by the time of the first intifada (kids throwing rocks against amred soldiers) things had gotten under control again. No, it's not due to some "zionist conspiracy", it's mainly plain subservience by the American mainstream media to Washington policy, plus the power of the letter-writing and fund-raising lobbyists and PACs.

Relative power You state that "The American-Jewish influence is miniscule compared to that of the transnational corporations, especially the oil companies and arms manufacturers." I do not understand. The trasnationals haven't suufered from Israel's existence nor from its actions. The oil companies have made out like bandits as well during the oil crises. As to the arms manufacturers, I didn't know they prefered peace over war, and calm over tension.

[brad]

http://www.gooff.com/NM/templates/Breaking_News.asp?articleid=564&zoneid=2


Zionist Influence On The US War Machine




The Israeli lobby has many "thinktanks" that provide future advisors to the various administrations, both Republican and Democrat. During the Clinton Administration, the Israeli lobby provided officials from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy like Martin Indyk. During the Bush Jr Administration, many of the officials the Israeli lobby provided are from their Republican "thinktanks," like the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA).

1). Richard Perle----One of Bush's foreign policy advisors, he