Discard the mythology of 'the Israel Lobby', reality is bad enough

[shira]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/18/jonathan-freedland-israel-lobby

<snip>

....The flaws in the Mearsheimer-Walt case remain as visible as when they were exposed by the Palestinian-American scholar Joseph Massad, Noam Chomsky and a clutch of other anti-Zionists. For one thing, if Israel and its backers really did control United States foreign policy, there would never be any divergence between them: Washington would simply do “the Lobby’s” bidding. But that is hardly the case. One can go back to the mid-1980s, when Israel and its friends begged the Reagan administration not to sell Awacs surveillance planes to Saudi Arabia - to no avail: the Saudis got their planes. Or spool forward to 1991 when George Bush pressured Israel to attend a peace conference against its will and withheld $10bn in much-needed loan guarantees unless Israel agreed to freeze settlements on occupied land. You might mention Israel’s proposed arms sales to China: Washington compelled Israel to back down, first in 2000 and again in 2005. More awkwardly, Israel has long sought the release of those who spied for it against the US. Washington has consistently refused.

Chomsky asks a useful question. If the US has been led to behave the way it does in the Middle East by the cunning “Israel Lobby”, how come it behaves the same way elsewhere? “What were ‘the Lobbies’ that led to pursuing very similar policies throughout the world?” As for the Middle East, Chomsky quotes the scholar Stephen Zunes: “There are far more powerful interests that have a stake in what happens in the Persian Gulf region than does Aipac , such as the oil companies, the arms industry and other special interests whose lobbying influence and campaign contributions far surpass that of the much-vaunted Zionist lobby …”

The naive assumption at work here is that the American dog has no interests of its own, leaving it free to be wagged by the pro-Israel tail. It’s a convenient view, casting the great superpower as a hapless, and essentially innocent, victim. But guess what: the US emphatically does have its own strategic interests - oil chief among them - and it guards them fiercely. Support for Israel as a loyal, dependable ally - ready to take on Arab and other forces that might pose a threat to those interests - has served America’s purposes well. That’s why the US acts the way it does, not because Aipac tells it to.

Perhaps the most powerful example - if only because so many believe the reverse to be true - is the Iraq war. Plenty of Mearsheimer-Walt followers reckon it was the “Lobby” wot done it: it was Israel that pushed for war. But as Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell, and others have explained, Israel’s leaders in fact repeatedly warned against an attack on Saddam, fearing it would distract from, and embolden, what it regarded as the real threat, namely Iran. As it happened, they were right.

<snip>

[ProgressiveMuslim]

1. Interesting that you exclude the subhead: "often hurting the cause they are meant to serve."

They are not all-powerful, but Israel's advocates in the US do play hardball - often hurting the cause they are meant to serve.

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

It touches a nerve when the nefarious lobby doings get exposed and justly criticized, huh, Shira?

Tell us Shira, since *you* continuously ask probing questions of regular posters here: Are you a member? Were you proud that AIPAC scuttled Freeman's nomination and humiliated Obama?

[cali]

2. Are you now or have you ever been.... ? n/t

[ProgressiveMuslim]

3. Shira is the queen of demanding that people answer questions.

Figured it was time to turn it around.

As one who is routinely called upon to clarify my position, I think I'm entitled to ask.

If you don't like it, tough shit.

[cali]

4. touchy, touchy.

didn't like the reference? Too bad. If you don't like what another poster does, why emulate it? Pretty weak minded of you.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

12. LOL Cali. You remind me of my son's 3rd grade teacher.

Controlling. Bossy. Always correcting people.

Could be a great career move for you!

[oberliner]

5. Your other question is equally preposterous

I refer to this:

"Were you proud that AIPAC scuttled Freeman's nomination and humiliated Obama?"

Firstly, AIPAC did not scuttle Freeman's nomination.

The people who opposed the nomination opposed it of their own volition.

Obviously AIPAC leadership and membership was not pleased with Freeman's nomination and several such people expressed those feelings and some even offered to provide information about Freeman to justify their discomfort with him (in spite of AIPAC itself being officially neutral).

However, numerous of the Democrats and Republicans who opposed the nomination have stated that they did not hear from AIPAC on the subject, and most of them opposed him based on opinions that they themselves actually hold.

Even if you disregard all of the other concerns that were brought up regarding Saudi Arabia and China (as Freeman seems to want to) and decide to attribute the entire episode to his stand on Israel, that does not mean that AIPAC was itself responsible for what happened.

Joe Lieberman, for example, does not need any encouragement from AIPAC to bring up issues about Chas Freeman and his writings about Israel.

Secondly, Freeman withdrew his nomination. This was his choice. He himself was not subject to any kind of review or confirmation process. Had he elected to stay in the position, he could have done so.

And lastly, Obama had nothing to do with this nomination and the withdrawal certainly did not "humiliate" Obama by any stretch of the imagination.

There have been actual people who were appointed by Obama for various position who did have to withdraw for various embarrassing reasons that may or may not have humiliated Obama.

This incident, however, is far from anything like that and certainly could not be realistically categorized as humiliating.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

9. AIPAC didn't scuttle Freeman? C'mon Oberliner. That's beneath you. nt

[oberliner]

11. I wish you'd take the time to address my points instead of just giving the one-liners

It would be helpful for me to understand exactly what you disagree with/dispute about my comments.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

13. Read any of the numerous bloggers who have posted about it.

Sorry -- just home from 12 hours at work and I'm too tired to list them.

Phil Weiss has done a number of posts linking commentary, all of which I find very compelling.

[shira]

7. LOL

I just snipped from Freedland's article what I thought was the best part proving his point.

And to answer your question, no, I have never been a member of AIPAC, nor have I ever once been to their website or gone to even one of their meetings. I couldn't even name the top 2 people in charge of AIPAC.

And AIPAC didn't scuttle Freeman's nomination or humiliate Obama. You think they're so supernaturally powerful that all they have to do is enlist a few bloggers and that's enough to derail the nomination? DAMN, that's powerful! A few AIPAC bloggers defeated an entire army of anti-Israel bloggers who are embarassingly enough, no match for them? You can't be serious. Freeman's nomination barely made any waves at all in the MSM. AIPAC "wins" by barely using their pinky finger to derail a nomination and embarass Obama? That's what you really think?

What did you think of Freedland's opinion? Still think whatever AIPAC wants, AIPAC gets?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

10. To quote the immortal Mr. Big, "Absa-fucking-lutely!"

[Idealism]

6. Obviously there is an "Israel lobby" just like all other interests have the same thing

Other lobbies get equally nefarious things done because it benefits them. The banking lobby got Glass-Steagall repealed in 1999 and look where that got us 10 years later; big oil and the big three lobbied to keep fuel standards lax and now we are a decade behind the Japanese in fuel cells.

But to deny the existence of such a lobby is just outright madness. Of course it exists, but it is not some conspiracy of Jewry that controls the strings of American foreign policy. It does impact our foreign policy, however, and they have had successes in the past. The single biggest accomplishment to me is the amount of money we hand them. We give them over $100 billion when they are one of the more advanced nations in the world and there are children starving to death and dying of AIDS in Africa. There is poverty in America, homeless children, but we give handouts to country's who have a better health care system that we do. That is what appalls me.

[shira]

8. so you generally agree with Freedland, right?

[Idealism]

14. I would say the Israeli lobby is no worse than FIRE, Big Oil, etc.

(FIRE= Finance, Investment, and Real Estate lobby).

All of these mentioned, however, work in their own self-interest and often times are counterproductive to what I would like American policy to be on the matter (and I am sure others on the left would agree as well).