Oil and the Israel Lobby

January 30, 2009 § 50 Comments

by M. Shahid Alam

In the slow evolution of US relations with Israel since 1948, as the latter mutated from a strategic liability to a strategic asset, Israel and its Jewish allies in the United States have always occupied the driver’s seat.

President Truman had shepherded the creation of Israel in 1947 not because the American establishment saw it as a strategic asset; this much is clear. “No one,” writes Cheryl Rubenberg, “not even the Israelis themselves, argues that the United States supported the creation of the Jewish state for reasons of security or national interest.”(1) Domestic politics, in an election year, was the primary force behind President Truman’s decision to support the creation of Israel. In addition, the damage to US interests due to the creation of Israel – although massive – was not immediate. This was expected to unfold slowly: and its first blows would be borne by the British who were still the paramount power in the region.

Nevertheless, soon after he had helped to create Israel, President Truman moved decisively to appear to distance the United States from the new state. Instead of committing American troops to protect Israel, when it fought against five Arab armies, he imposed an even-handed arms embargo on both sides in the conflict. Had Israel been dismantled [at birth], President Truman would have urged steps to protect the Jewish colonists in Palestine, but he would have accepted a premature end to the Zionist state as fait accompli. Zionist pressures failed to persuade President Truman to lift the arms embargo. Ironically, military deliveries from Czechoslovakia may have saved the day for Israel.

Once Israel had defeated the armies of Arab proto-states and expelled the Palestinians to emerge as an exclusively Jewish colonial-settler state in 1949, these brute facts would work in its favor. Led by the United States, the Western powers would recognize Israel, aware that they would have to defend this liability. At the same time, the humiliation of defeat had given an impetus to Arab nationalists across the region, who directed their anger against Israel and its Western sponsors.

This placed Israel in a strong position to accelerate its transformation into a strategic asset. In tandem with the Jewish lobby in the United States, Israel sought to maximize the assistance it could receive from the West through policies that stoked Arab nationalism; and as Israel’s military superiority grew this emboldened it to increase its aggressive posture towards the Arabs. Israel had the power to set in motion a vicious circle that would soon create the Arab threat against which it would defend the West. As a result, at various points during the 1950s, France, the United States, and Britain began to regard Israel as a strategic asset.

America’s embrace of Israel did not begin in 1967. Israel’s victory in the June War only accelerated a process that had been underway since its creation – even before its creation. Indeed, the Zionists had decided in 1939 to pursue the United States as their new mother country; they knew that they could use the very large and influential population of American Jews to win official US backing for their goals.

This paid off handsomely in 1948; but thereafter, the United States sought to contain the damage that would flow from the creation of Israel. However, these efforts would be self-defeating; the die had been cast. Israel – not the United States – was in the driver’s seat; and Israel would seek to maximize the negative fallout from its creation. As Israel succeeded in augmenting – within limits – the Arab threat to itself and the United States, the Jewish lobby would regain confidence; it would re-organize to reinforce Israel’s claim that it was now a strategic asset.

We have here another vicious circle – virtuous, for Israel. The Jewish lobby would gain strength as the Arab-cum-Soviet threat to the Middle East grew. When Israel scaled back the Arab threat in 1967, the Jewish lobby would step in to spend the political capital the Jewish state had garnered in the United States. The Israeli capture of Jerusalem in 1967 also energized the Christian Zionists, who, with encouragement from Jewish Zionists, would organize, enter into Republican politics, and soon become a major ally of the Jewish lobby. The sky was now the limit for Israel and the Zionists in the United States. The special relationship would become more special under every new presidency.

Several writers on the American left have pooh-poohed the charge that the Jewish lobby has been a leading force shaping America’s Middle East policy. They argue that the United States has supported Israel because of the con-vergence of their interests in the region. (2) Oil, primarily Saudi Arabian oil, they maintain correctly, is “a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history.”(3) Incorrectly, however, they insist that this is what has driven US policy towards the Middle East.

A priori, this is an odd position to maintain, since Britain – up until 1948 – had managed quite well to maintain complete control over Middle Eastern oil, a dominance the United States could not sustain ‘despite’ the ‘strategic support’ of Israel. Successively, they argue, Western control over oil came under threat from Arab nationalism and militant Islamism. Israel has demonstrated its strategic value by holding in check and, later, defeating, the Arab nationalist challenge. Since then, Israel has fought the Islamist challenge to US hegemony over the region.

It may be useful to examine Noam Chomsky’s analysis of this relationship, since he enjoys iconic status amongst both liberal and leftists in the United States. Chomsky frames his analysis of ‘causal factors’ behind the special relationship as essentially a choice between “domestic pressure groups” and “US strategic interests.” He finds two limitations in the argument that the “American Jewish community” is the chief protagonist of the special relationship between Israel and the United States.

First, “it underestimates the scope of the “support for Israel,” and second, it overestimates the role of political pressure groups in decision-making.” Chomsky points out that the Israel lobby is “far broader” than the American Jewish community; it embraces liberal opinion, labor leaders, Christian fundamentalists, conservative hawks, and “fervent cold warriors of all stripes.”(4) While this broader definition of the Israel lobby is appropriate, and this is what most users of the term have in mind, Chomsky thinks that the presence of this “far broader” support for Israel diminishes the role that American Jews play in this lobby.

Two hidden assumptions underpin Chomsky’s claim that a broader Israel lobby shifts the locus of lobbying to non-Jewish groups. First, he fails to account for the strong overlap – barring the Christian fundamentalists – between the American Jewish community and the other domestic pressure groups he enumerates. In the United States, this overlap has existed since the early decades of the twentieth century, and increased considerably in the post-War period. It is scarcely to be doubted that Jews hold – and deservedly so – a disproportionate share of the leadership positions in corporations, the labor movement, and those professions that shape public discourse. Starting in the 1980s, the ascendancy of Jewish neoconservatives – together with their think tanks – gave American Jews an equally influential voice in conservative circles. Certainly, the weight of Jewish neoconservative opinion during the early years of President Bush – both inside and outside his administration – has been second to that of none. The substantial Jewish presence in the leadership circles of the other pressure groups undermines Chomsky’s contention that the pro-Israeli group is “far broader” than the American Jewish community.

There is a second problem with Chomsky’s argument. Implicitly, he assumes that the different pro-Israeli groups have existed, acted and evolved independently of each other; alternatively, the impact of the lobbying efforts of these groups is merely additive. This ignores the galvanizing role that Jewish organizations have played in mobilizing Gentile opinion behind the Zionist project. The activism of the American Jews – as individuals and groups – has operated at several levels. Certainly, the leaders of the Zionist movement have directed a large part of their energies to lobbying at the highest levels of official decision-making. At the same time, they have created, and they orchestrate, a layered network of Zionist organizations who have worked very hard to create support for their aims in the broader American civil society.

American Jews have worked through several channels to influence civil society. As growing numbers of American Jews embraced Zionist goals during the 1940s, as their commitment to Zionism deepened, this forced the largest Jewish organizations to embrace Zionist goals. In addition, since their earliest days, the Zionists have created the organizations, allies, networks and ideas that would translate into media, congressional and presidential support for the Zionist project. In addition, since Jewish Americans made up a growing fraction of the activists and leaders in various branches of civil society – the labor, civil rights and feminist movements – it was natural that the major organs of civil society came to embrace Zionist aims. It makes little sense, then, to maintain that the pro-Israeli positions of mainstream American organizations had emerged independently of the activism of the American Jewish community.

Does our contention fail in the case of the Christian Evangelicals because of the absence of Jews in their ranks? In this case, the movement has received the strongest impetus from the ingathering of Jews that has proceeded in Israel since the late nineteenth century. The dispensationalist stream within Protestant Christians in the United States – who believe that the ingathering of Jews in Israel will precede the Second Coming – has been energized by every Zionist success on the ground. They have viewed these successes – the launching of Zionism, the Balfour Declaration, the creation of Israel, the capture of Jerusalem, ‘Judea’ and ‘Samaria’ in 1967 – as so many confirmations of their dispensationalist eschatology. The movement expanded with every Zionist victory. At the same time, it would be utterly naïve to rule out direct relations between the Zionists and the leaders of the evangelical movement. The Zionists have rarely shrunk from accepting support even when it has come from groups with unedifying beliefs.

Noam Chomsky raises a second objection against the ability of the Jewish lobby to influence policy on its own steam. “No pressure group,” he maintains, “will dominate access to public opinion or maintain consistent influence over policy-making unless its aims are close to those of elite elements with real power (emphases added).”(5) One problem with this argument is easily stated. It pits the Jewish lobby as one “pressure group” – amongst many – arrayed against all the others that hold the real power. This equation of the Jewish lobby with a narrowly defined “pressure group” is misleading. We have argued – a position that is well supported by the evidence – that Jewish protagonists of Zionism have worked through many different channels to influence public opinion, the composition of political classes, and political decisions. They work through the organs that shape public opinion to determine what Americans know about Israel, how they think about Israel, and what they can say about it. This is no little Cuban lobby, Polish lobby or Korean lobby. Once we recognize the scale of financial resources the Jewish lobby commands, the array of political forces it can mobilize, and the tools it commands to direct public opinion on the Middle East, we would shrink from calling it a lobby.

Chomsky quickly proceeds to undermine his own argument about “elite elements with real power.” He explains that the “[elite] elements are not uniform in interests or (in the case of shared interests) in tactical judgments; and on some issues, such as this one [policy towards Israel], they have often been divided.”(6) Yet, despite the differences in their interests, their tactics, and their divisions, Chomsky maintains that these “elite elements” have “real power.” Oddly, these “divided” elites – whoever they are – exercise the power of veto over the multi-faceted Jewish lobby with its deep pockets, hierarchical organizations, and influence over key organs of civil society, campaign contributions, popular votes, etc.

Chomsky’s argument shifts again – a second time in the same paragraph – away from “elite elements” to “America’s changing conceptions of its political-strategic interests” in the Middle East.(6) This suggests a new theory of the chief determinant of US policy towards Israel. At the heart of these “political-strategic interests” is the oil wealth of the Middle East – and the twin threats to American control over this oil wealth from Arab nationalists and the Soviets. Presumably, Israel protects these “political-strategic interests” by holding the Arabs and the Soviets at bay. Chomsky conveniently forgets that the Arab nationalist threat to US interests in the Middle East was – in large part – the product of Israel’s insertion into the region, its ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, and its aggressive posture towards Arabs since its creation. It is unnecessary to account for the Soviet threat, since they entered the region on the back of Arab nationalist discontent. Indeed, had Israel never been created, it is more than likely that all the states in the Middle East – just like Turkey and Pakistan – would have remained firmly within the Western sphere of influence.

In another attempt to convince his readers that oil has driven US policy towards the Middle East, Chomsky claims that the United States was “committed to win and keep this prize [Saudi oil].” Presumably, the United States could not keep this “prize” without help from Israel.

This argument fails because it ignores history. Starting in 1933, American oil corporations – who later merged to form Aramco – gained exclusive rights to explore, produce and market Saudi oil. Saudi Arabia first acquired a 25 percent ownership stake in Aramco in 1973. Had there emerged an Arab nationalist threat to US control over Saudi oil in the 1950s – in the absence of Israel – the United States could have handled it by establishing one or more military bases in Saudi Arabia or, preferably, in one of the Emirates, since American military presence in Saudi Arabia might inflame Islamic sentiments. Far from helping entrench American control of Saudi oil, Israel, by radicalizing Arab nationalism, gave Saudi Arabia the excuse to first gain a 25 percent stake in Aramco and then nationalize it in 1988.

Chomsky claims that the United States was committed to winning and keeping the “stupendous” oil prize. This claim is not supported by the results that America’s Middle Eastern policy has produced on the ground over the years. If the United States was indeed committed to this goal, it would have pursued a Middle East policy that could be expected to maximize – with the lowest risks of failure – the access of US oil corporations to exploration, production and distribution rights over oil in this region. This is not the case.

In creating, aiding and arming Israel, the United States has followed a policy that could easily have been foreseen to produce, as it did produce, exactly the opposite effects. It gave a boost to Arab nationalism, radicalized it, and led within a few years to the Arab nationalist takeover of three of the four key states in the Arab world. In turn, this contributed to the nationalization of oil wealth even in those Arab countries that remained clients of the United States, not to speak of countries that were taken over by Arab nationalists , who excluded the US oil corporations from this industry altogether. In addition, America’s Middle Eastern policy converted the Middle East into a leading arena of wars. It also became a source of deep tensions between the US and the Soviets, since US partisanship of Israel forced the Arab nationalist regimes to ally themselves with the Soviet Union. In the October War of 1973, the United States provoked the Arab nations – because of its decision to re-supply the Israeli army during the war – to impose a costly oil embargo against the United States. In opposition to the pleadings of its oil corporations, the United States has also prevented them from doing business with three oil-producing nations in the Middle East – Iran, Iraq and Libya.(8)

If oil had been driving America’s Middle East policy, we should have seen the fingerprints of the oil lobby all over this policy. In recent decades, according to Mearsheimer and Walt, the oil lobby has directed its efforts “almost entirely on their commercial interests rather than on broader aspects of foreign policy.” They focus most of their lobbying efforts on getting the best deals on tax policies, government regulations, drilling rights, etc. Even the AIPAC bears witness to this. In the early 1980s, Morris J. Amitay, former executive director of AIPAC, noted, “We rarely see them [oil corporations] lobbying on foreign policy issues…In a sense, we have the field to ourselves.”(9)

Why does it matter whether it is oil or the Jewish lobby that determines US policy towards Israel and the Middle East?

The answer to this question has important consequences. It will determine who is in charge, and, therefore, who should be targeted by people who oppose Israel’s war mongering and its destruction of Palestinian society. If US policy is driven by America’s strategic interests – and Israel is a strategic US asset – opposing this policy will not be easy. If Israel keeps the oil flowing, keeps it cheap, and keeps down the Arabs and Islamists – all this for a few billion dollars a year – that is a bargain. In this case, opponents of this policy face an uphill task. Sure, they can document the immoral consequences of this policy – as Noam Chomsky and others do. Such moral arguments, however, will not cut much ice. What are the chances that Americans can be persuaded to sacrifice their “stupendous prize” because it kills a few tens of thousands of Arabs?

On the other hand, if the Jewish lobby drives US policy towards the Middle East, there is some room for optimism. Most importantly, the opponents of this policy have to dethrone the reigning paradigm, which claims that Israel is a strategic asset. In addition, it is necessary to focus attention on each element of the real costs – economic, political and moral – that Israel imposes on the United States. Winning these intellectual arguments will be half the battle won; this will persuade growing numbers of Americans to oppose a policy because it hurts them. Simultaneously, those who seek justice for the Palestinians must organize to oppose the power of the Israel lobby and take actions that force Israel to bear the moral, economic and political consequences of its destructive policies in the Middle East.

M. Shahid Alam is professor of economics at Northeastern University. He is author of Challenging the New Orientalism (2007). Send comments to alqalam02760@yahoo.com. Visit the author’s website at http://aslama.org.

References

  1. “Virtually every professional in the for-eign affairs bureaucracy, including the secretaries of state and war (later, defense) and the joint chiefs of staff, opposed the creation of Israel from the standpoint of US national interests (Rubenberg: 1986, 9-10).”
  2. For criticisms of Chomsky, see James Petras, The Power of Israel in the United States (Atlanta: Clarity Press, 2006): 168-81; and Jeff Blankfort, Damage control: Noam Chomsky and the Israeli-Palestine conflict.
  3. This assessment comes from a 1945 re-port of the State Department (Chomsky: 1999, 17).
  4. Noam Chomsky, Fateful triangle: 13.
  5. Noam Chomsky, Fateful triangle: 17.
  6. Noam Chomsky, Fateful triangle:: 17.Noam Chomsky, Fateful triangle:: 17.
  7. Mearsheimer and Walt, The Israel lobby and US foreign policy (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2006): 143.
  8. Mearsheimer and Walt, The Israel lobby: 145.

M.I.A: I have long maintained that the best way to analyze US engagement in the Middle East is to use what my friend Phil Weiss calls the Noam Mearsheimer principle. Noam Chomsky is a towering intellect and a moralist par excellence, but perhaps not the best of political scientists. John Mearsheimer is the finest political scientist, clear headed and lucid, but his Realist vision is ultimately cold. In order to yield the best results one therefore has to combine Mearsheimer’s hard-headed political analysis with Chomsky’s principled moral critiques of power.

About these ads

§ 50 Responses to Oil and the Israel Lobby

  • 99 says:

    Noam Chomsky lost his “iconic status” with me a long time ago. He may once have deserved status — I don’t know for sure because his obvious failings made me less curious to go back and check — but if he did, he’s lost his right to it many times over in the last at least fifteen years. He shapes his positions on things in accordance with what serves him to say, as directly opposed to what serves truth and our need to get at it.

    If you ask me, he’s just a pusillanimous and ego-addled old gasbag, virtually useless as a source, except where he might mystically deem it safe enough to take a real and righteous position on a dire matter, if at all.

    It makes me crazy to see young people invoking his name as though a saint had blessed their pet issues. Humans are way too easily hypnotized by the status we confer on some who manage to distinguish themselves somehow at the right place at the right time. It makes people lose their critical thinking and turn into perpetuators of myths. Always. Even the most avid critical thinkers desire the ability to let down their guard in certain areas, wish, without even questioning it, to identify those “safe” havens so they can speed up, divert energies to other things, maybe even become authorities themselves, or at least be able to cite stuff by rote in a pinch. It ends up that even though reality is staring them right in the face, they are insisting on delusion, with footnotes, because of this.

    So. He’s a pernicious old gasbag and ought to just shut up.

    Mearsheimer, on the other hand, gives us the opportunity to keep using our heads, draw our own morals from his work, beside heroically sacrificing his position in the world for truth, which outstrips Chomsky from every angle — something Chomsky clearly would not consider — would think/talk his way around if absolutely necessary to risk at all — all by itself.

    I’m sorry to be so dismissive of someone who has worked so hard, and given many people no small amount of help, but he insists on ruining the quality and reliability of everything he says by all that making up of complete irrelevancies in “addressing” things that frighten him somehow. If you pay attention to him on the JFK assassination you can see it pretty clearly. If you pay attention to him on the matter of 9/11 it fairly screams at you. Almost everything I encounter from him is laced with this trick, and the people who might be stopping so many from such heinous suffering are his victims.

    Mearsheimer obviously made a conscious decision not to do that. It is worth unspeakably more to the world on that account.

  • evildoer says:

    So much commentary with so little basic grasp of political economy.

    The U.S. oil interest has nothing to do with keeping the oil cheap. Oil is a cheap commodity and the politics of oil are about making it profitable and keeping the largest part of these profits in U.S. hands.

  • m.idrees says:

    I presume that is why Venezuela was invaded and occupied?

  • evildoer says:

    I presume that is why Venezuela was invaded and occupied?

    So you mean the Zionist lobby invaded Vietnam? What’s your point, that the U.S. must be consistent? That if it invades one country for a reason it must invade all?

    The US invaded Iraq because Iraq was invadeable, because all kinds of corporate and class interests had something to gain from the invasion, and because no interest group with any clout was against it. The war with Iraq didn’t start in 2003, it started in 1991. Iraq has been constantly on the receiving end of U.S. violence since 1991. The major concerns leading for the 1991 invasion were the low price of oil and the fear of the “peace dividend” after the collapse of the Soviet union.

  • m.idrees says:

    The US invaded Iraq because Iraq was invadeable,

    More so than Venezuela? I’ve lived in Venezuela, they don’t even have an Army to speak of.

    because all kinds of corporate and class interests had something to gain from the invasion, and because no interest group with any clout was against it.

    Go look for a September 2002 issue of New York Times where you’ll find an ad with the most prominent names amongst establishment realists warning that the “War With Iraq Is Not in the U.S. National Interest.

    As for the corporate and ‘class interests’, can you give specific examples of their role in enabling the war? Also, can you tell me if these ‘class interests’ are somehow exclusive and don’t include people such as Haim Saban (the highest individual donor to the Democratic party) and Sheldon Adelson (one of the highest individual donors to the republican party). We know about the politics of both — they describe it with one word: Israel. Do their interests count?

    Are you suggesting that Bush Sr., James Baker, Brent Scowcroft, Zbig Brzezinski are oblivious to such class interests?

    The war with Iraq didn’t start in 2003, it started in 1991.

    It also ended in ’91, in case you have forgotten. Yeah, it was crippled under sanctions, which incidentally Cheney spent the whole ’90s complaining about. As did US corporations. Guess who was pushing for them to stay in place? Guess who drafted Iraq Liberation Act of ’98?

    Do you know who the president, secretary of state and National security adviser were in ’91? Do you know what they had to say about Iraq ’03?

    Iraq has been constantly on the receiving end of U.S. violence since 1991.

    Indeed. And Iraq had also not been invaded since ’91.

    The major concerns leading for the 1991 invasion were the low price of oil and the fear of the “peace dividend” after the collapse of the Soviet union.

    There is always a gap between intent and capability. I am sure you must have heard of the Nayirah story. What you probably never bothered checking was who orchestrated the whole affair. Let me help: ever heard of a fellow called Tom Lantos?

  • atheo says:

    “because all kinds of corporate and class interests had something to gain from the invasion”

    In fact the interests of US based multi-national corporations were harmed by over a decade of Zionist imposed sanctions, their market share of Iraqi trade has not recovered.

    evildoer seems happily ignorant of the U.S.”dual containment” policy which served Israeli goals not America’s. As soon as the Iran/Iraq war ended the U.S. “contained” Iraq for Israel. This was accomplished through military devastation followed by sanctions, none of which was designed to benefit U.S. business. If evildoer sees an analogy to the Vietnam era, which nation is America’s geostrategic challenger? Vietnam was a proxy war in a bi-polar world order. Where is Iraq’s Soviet sponsor?

  • Maskhadan says:

    99, I am in agreement about Chomsky. I used to look upon his works in awe as well, but then again I was 17 at the time. I think he is like training wheels for people who who need to wake up to the fact that America is not always right. But once you start really analyzing history and trying to come up with practical solutions, he becomes rather useless. What I think of when I think of Chomsky is relentlessly pointing out the obvious(i.e. we always focus on the others’ crimes but ignore our own), and also making random statements that we’re just supposed to assume are reality and take as sage like advice. My favorite of the latter is his idea that “power bears the burden of proof to prove its legitimacy, otherwise it should be dismantled.” Really? Why? Who made that rule?

    I did want to ask about some specifics, maybe online sources, about the thing you mentioned in regard to him bringing up “irrelevancies”. I have read many articles from Chomsky and seen his documentary Manufacturing Consent, but to be fair I have only read one of his books(which curiously didn’t have endnotes or footnotes IIRC, but I guess St. Chomsky doesn’t need them).

    I ask for examples because I am working on a new series of articles and I plan to address the issue of Chomsky at least several times. Thanks in advance.

  • mike d says:

    “99”
    You admitted to not knowing Chomsky’s work very well. It is on this basis (complete lack thereof, rather) that you formulate your utterly ignorant and to put it frankly vacuous opinion? A bad joke man.

    Chomsky is world renowned (as well as the world’s leading intellectual) because of his impeccable scholarship, and the seemingly impossibility in proving him wrong. He has responded to countless “Israel Lobby” claims, and I hope he responds to this one as well.

    Chomsky in many ways has shaped the lens with which the radical left framework their analyses. He’s a genius and those who suffer from inferiority complexes enjoy making empty attacks at him and his character, which is much easier than getting smacked in the face by the overwhelming body of evidence he uses to substantiate claims and arguments.

    Srsly gtfo.

  • mike d says:

    A brief remark from Chomsky himself:

    I looked at it. No plans to respond. It didn’t have much to do with the few paragraphs I’ve written on this subject, and avoided all of the main issues. The history is also spotty. As I’ve mentioned several times, if the thesis about lobby power were correct, it would be a great relief to me and others who have been actively engaged for years in trying organize popular pressure to lead to abandonment of US rejectionism. We could stop all of that, just go to the corporate headquarters of Lockheed Martin, Intel, Microsoft, and others and explain to them that their interests are harmed by US support for Israel, so they should terminate their investments in Israel and use their political and economic clout to put the lobby out of business. Anyone with a little familiarity with American society and political economy knows that they could do that in their sleep. That in fact is the sole activist-related conclusion that follows from the thesis. But none of the believers do it. Why?

    Noam CHomsky

  • 99 says:

    Oh, yipes, Maskhadan, now yer looking at the spectacle of me going back through a couple years’ worth of snippets and YouTubes and citations by acolytes and crabby Truthers! Truly, I think if you just start playing some videos with Chomsky speaking on any number of topics, you can pick out your own examples. I think if you dig on the 9/11 sites enough you can find his outrageous pronouncements on the subject and some of the challenges he batted away feebly if imperiously. On that particular topic, the thing that sticks out in my mind the most is his failure to grasp that breaking the laws of physics automatically discredits official stories… come to think of it, that was an issue in the JFK assassination too.

    Coincidentally, though, someone emailed me earlier to ask if I’d ever seen anything about this JFK Executive order, and I answered that I thought I had and that it and a lot of other things were part of why I’m so down on Chomsky. He shot me back this link saying there was some good stuff on him there, but I barely glanced at it, because I’m really not interested in spending any more time on him. It might be a help to you though, a jumping off point. But, truly, just google up videos of him speaking, especially being interviewed, and see how he bats aside things like hard physical evidence and anything, really, that doesn’t square with what he wants to pronounce upon any given situation.

    Some of it just pedagogical tricksterism that is found throughout the academic world, because they engage in debate all the time, and fight like roosters with spurs. Some of them lose their morals in the process, and I think Chomsky definitely qualifies, but I can’t remember any offhand would ignore the laws of physics in front of an audience, let alone their peers. That’s pretty out of hand. Fairly confident of his credentials completely hypnotizing even seasoned critical thinkers, but it’s up to you, really, to look and choose your favorite examples.

    Sometimes it helps to either listen a couple times to the whole thing, or back-up in the spots that seem crucial and listen again. It takes the spell off and helps one spot the rhetorical tricks. People, not just Chomsky, who become adept at them forget that when not used strictly to further illuminate the subject, or the point, they begin serving only the rhetorician’s self-image and leave the unwary trapped in their stupid ego trips with them.

    m.idrees

    Tom Lantos. Ewww….

  • Maskhadan says:

    Ah I see where the problem is now 99. See my problem with Noam Chomsky is that he offers no solution, and he seems to purposely maintain an ambiguous world-view, in addition to his idea that he doesn’t need to cite sources. You apparently don’t like him because he won’t endorse a 9-11 conspiracy theory of some sort. Here’s a tip: In history we don’t have “official stories”. There is a mainstream view based on evidence collected and recorded. If someone wants to challenge the mainstream view, all they need to do is present their alternative hypotheses and back it up with evidence. 9-11 truthers cannot, and in fact often refuse to do this, and I have years of experience debating them to know that. First off, there was nothing about 9-11 that violated the laws of physics. This is most likely a reference to the “free fall” claims about the building. Aside from the fact that the building clearly did not fall at free fall speed, but you can clearly see debris falling away from the tower, falling faster than the bulk of the building- ergo if the building were falling at free fall speed, those chunks would have to be falling at faster than free fall speed.

  • m.idrees says:

    I have read many articles from Chomsky and seen his documentary Manufacturing Consent, but to be fair I have only read one of his books(which curiously didn’t have endnotes or footnotes IIRC, but I guess St. Chomsky doesn’t need them).

    Maskhadan, I’m afraid you are making a superficial judgment if you are basing it on a single book, which appears to be an exception since almost all of his books are thoroughly referenced. (Could it be that you are talking about Understanding Power? the footnotes for that were issued separately since it was mostly based on interviews).

    Also, I do think he offers useful solutions, or at least templates for solutions. It is in the case of I-P however that I feel his analysis is flawed, so much so that it has hampered the whole progressive movement (at least the part over which his analysis holds sway, which is substantial).

    mike d:

    If that is Chomsky’s response, then I’m sure even someone as in awe as yourself could see that it is an evasion.

    Chomsky in many ways has shaped the lens with which the radical left framework their analyses.

    Which is often times useful, sometimes not. They could do their own thinking for a change. Perhaps that would make them less irrelevant. At least on the Israel Palestine issue.

  • atheo says:

    mike d 1 Feb 09 at 5:32 am,

    Of course the flaw in Chomsky’s position is that finance trumps industry. They can’t function if it is witheld. The Military Industrial Complex IS subservient to the “defense” dept. Israel-firster honchos that direct contracts their way. Real power lies with capital now as ever. Empires come and go while finance is enduring and mobile.

  • atheo says:

    Maskhadan,

    “there was nothing about 9-11 that violated the laws of physics. This is most likely a reference to the “free fall” claims about the building. Aside from the fact that the building clearly did not fall at free fall speed, but you can clearly see debris falling away from the tower, falling faster than the bulk of the building- ergo if the building were falling at free fall speed, those chunks would have to be falling at faster than free fall speed.”

    You seem to be mistaken in this conclusion. In fact the total elapsed time of the collapses as recorded is quite close to free fall speed. The anomoly you cite would be explained by forces other than gravity acting upon the ejected pieces.

  • Maskhadan says:

    Perhaps quite close to free fall speed, but this is what the engineers who evaluated the building expected in a pancake collapse, and it certainly doesn’t violate the laws of physics. As for the pieces falling faster, there was no force other than gravity acting upon them. They were falling in free fall speed, because there was nothing at all supporting them. The falling top of the building had something to resist it on the way down.

  • atheo says:

    Maskhadan,

    I am begining to doubt your familiarity with the 9/11 evidence since the “pancake theory” has long since been abandoned due to the fact that the WTC design features primary structural support in the massive CENTER COLUMNS. Nobody defends the “pancake theory”. It was thoroughly discredited.

    You go on to claim that even though the buildings indeed were falling near free fall speed “As for the pieces falling faster, there was no force other than gravity acting upon them. They were falling in free fall speed, because there was nothing at all supporting them.”

    This position is entirely illogical. Obviously if the debris was falling faster than the free fall speed at which the buildings fell there must have been another force at work.

    My suggestion for you would be to read some of David Ray Griffin’s fine books with an open mind and familiarise yourself with the topic before engaging in further discussions.

  • atheo says:

    Another fine piece on the topic of “war for oil”:

    Behind the Drive to War
    By Ismael Hossein-zadeh

    (This paper was presented at the annual symposium of the Center for Global Trade and Development, Chapman University, CA, April 6-8, 2006.)

    http://atheonews.blogspot.com/2009/02/behind-drive-to-war.html

  • 99 says:

    Maskhadan

    You know, the whole time I was mustering a response to you I was afraid that you were really angling for a fight on 9/11.

    Clearly, you have not paid attention to all the evidence that has been wrung out, tested, proven, peer reviewed, emerged as fact relative to 9/11… or, like Chomsky, for your own reasons prefer to wave it off. I chose that example because it was most vivid. I’m sick of hassling with wusses over 9/11 and don’t. There’s no point in dealing with the nastiness that arises to cover for laziness and ignorance, the people who won’t look — or can’t because they are too dim, so simply side with the majority or more powerful factions to cover for it — at cold facts and allow themselves to assimilate them if it puts them in some sort of perceived jeopardy with authority, their peers, their social circles, in the self-image department. They won’t stand up for the truth if it will discommode them at all… ever… no matter how much sense you present… no matter how badly you shame them.

    That’s the problem with Chomsky, and it’s his luck he has enough acolytes to spare with this crap. My opinion of him is definitely not based on his treatment of 9/11 alone. You’ve just show that’s also the problem with you.

    So, pot, you have no right to call the kettle black, but pointing this out probably won’t stop you.

  • atheo says:

    I’m more inclined to give Chomsky the benefit of the doubt on 9/11 than his inane denial of the power of the Israel lobby, a subject which he does include within his area of interest. When you add it all together though, it looks awfully bad. It’s hard to view his shortcomings as being simply the result of a closed mind. Hasbara? Deep cover CIA (operation Mockingbird)? I won’t speculate, but something is amiss there.

  • 99 says:

    I think it was his insane holdings on the JFK assassination, an almost palpable envy of the man’s place in our hearts, while being interviewed by some kid in a taxi on the way to a speaking engagement that made me snap, lose what little patience for him I had left… and the 9/11 bit was icing… and THIS is beyond the pale.

    It’s been pointed out by a lot of people that his position, his funding, depends on him taking these positions. Somewhere, re the 9/11 insanity, somebody bothered to enumerate the forces weighing on him, and on Amy Goodman, about certain issues. If I can wade back through my brain fog to remember where I saw that, I will certainly link it. Some might consider that stuff an excuse. Obviously, I’m not one of them.

  • atheo says:

    Why would someone feel the need to legitimise the Warren Commission’s bizzarre narrative designed to explain a lone gunman theory of the JFK assassination? Why not just take a pass?

  • 99 says:

    Just so, atheo, just so.

  • mike d says:

    So lets go about this logically. What are some of Chomsky’s positions (there must be many, given a certain consensus here) that are so egregiously erroneous?

    I tediously peck through a lot of his work (for the fool who mentioned “no footnotes” I have about 12 Chomsky books, each one is so laden with footnotes it would take years to go through them all). Which brings me to a peripheral point. People love to judge Chomsky without knowing a fraction of what they would need to know to judge.

    Point being, I’d like to see specific instances where Chomsky is so wrong; evidence against evidence.

    Its a challenge you will all fail, and its actually quite funny to witness the arrogance of many who are not a thousandth of Chomsky’s intellectual prestige, yet think their “word” is more accurate.

    In regards to “intentions” and “incentives”, Chomsky is 80 years old, and he’s still booked far in advance for presentations, talks, etc, as well as being active in writing articles, and answering emails for 4-6 hours every evening.

    This is 100% sincere. Not a man with an agenda. He’s 80 for god’s sake, if he was not legit, he would have run away with his millions years ago and chilled for the rest of his days. Rather, he’s dedicated and true to each word.

  • atheo says:

    Chomsky seems “dedicated” allright. He’s a dedicated tribalist as are all lite-Zionists by definition. If this reality escapes mike d, it is not due to the “failing” of Chomsky’s critics but the obvious fact that mike d refuses to address the issue of Israel lobby power denial and the fact that Chomsky supports the “two state solution” which is plainly a seperatist and supremacist position.

    We don’t need to extensively quote Chomsky’s position in this regard, though this has been done by Jeffrey Blankfort, his position is quite open and undenied as posted right here by none other than mike d.

  • mike d says:

    I didn’t say it was powerful. Answer the paramount question that Chomsky posed if you want to pursue this discussion:

    As I’ve mentioned several times, if the thesis about lobby power were correct, it would be a great relief to me and others who have been actively engaged for years in trying organize popular pressure to lead to abandonment of US rejectionism. We could stop all of that, just go to the corporate headquarters of Lockheed Martin, Intel, Microsoft, and others and explain to them that their interests are harmed by US support for Israel, so they should terminate their investments in Israel and use their political and economic clout to put the lobby out of business. Anyone with a little familiarity with American society and political economy knows that they could do that in their sleep. That in fact is the sole activist-related conclusion that follows from the thesis. But none of the believers do it. Why?

    Moreover, why does the US come out on top in all decisions? As in weapons sales to China; the US forced Israel to stop, and humiliated them.

    Stephen Zunes has also debunked the sorry theory:
    Israel and its supporters are essentially being used as convenient scapegoats for America’s disastrous policies in the Middle East.

    http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3270

  • 99 says:

    Why bore the snot out of people with intricate, and footnoted, examples of his failings when he’s in on record, in print and all over the internet, and they can judge for themselves? Not only can they, they should, if they are interested.

    I hate to tell you, but when you’re that old, if at all possible, you don’t want to go gently into that good night, you want to keep being who you were half a lifetime ago. Add to this the strong craving for the adoration and respect, the delusion that your positions have not become so tainted, antiquated, self-serving, lame, irrelevant as to have ceased being worth listening to — and that is a prime reason for many octogenarians to get out of bed, let alone leave the house — and you have more than ample explanation for his “dedication”.

    As I said on another thread, I don’t want to beat up on an old man, but many lives depend on us getting this stuff right and getting it mainstream enough to save those lives. When you have Chomsky able and willing to hobble up and put everyone back to sleep, that is NOT a good or laudable thing. It’s poison. It’s poison, and if he cared for sense and truth and the lives of innocents even just on a par with his self-image, he would desist… IF, that is, he’s yet lucid enough to discern.

    I had a great aunt who did such a great impression of being lucid that it was almost impossible to convince doctors and authorities to help remove predators from her orbit. She was together enough to know when to lie on direct questioning, but one could, especially if one was a handsome man half her age, but anyone really, literally receive payment from her for some service, chat her up for ten minutes or so, and then receive that payment again, and you could, if you were cold-hearted enough, continue to do this indefinitely without her ever catching on to what you were doing. So Chomsky may very well be on that slippery slope of protecting his own vanity against any odds, completely unable to jump out of it.

    Most vain old intellectuals fight it and do not bow out. Most vain old ladies fight it and do not bow out. If they are lucky enough to have the health to get out there, they do. Hell, Gore Vidal has become more assertive than his historically assertive self with the passing of each year, and he’s 83. There are many examples.

    “Dedication” for people like Chomsky means unflagging intellectual rigor and we actually have, you actually have, cited instances where it has completely evaporated. The internet is riddled with examples for anyone to see.

  • atheo says:

    “Anyone with a little familiarity with American society and political economy knows that they could do that [over rule the Israel lobby]in their sleep.”

    This is nothing more than a silly way to avoid the issue! You fail to debate the points I made above that refute the baseless contention that the military industrial complex is preeminent. Who holds the purse strings that the industrialists rely on, both in finance and DOD purchasing?

    The fact that you can find another denier of the power of the Israel lobby in Zunes is not particularly impressive as his work generally contains the same blind spots as does Chomsky’s.

  • 99 says:

    Do you mean to suggest that American politicians have tricked the mighty Israel Lobby into forking over millions and millions of dollars to do what they already intended to do?

    Have you not noticed politicians going before AIPAC and the Herzliya Conference to make public bold, warlike statements even after they have been at pains to convince the electorate that they are antiwar?

    Have you not listened to the former legislators who are former legislators because they lost the backing of the Lobby and the Lobby actively campaigned against them, poured money into their opponents’ campaigns, smeared them in print and on the airwaves?

    Have you taken account of the insane number of dual citizens in high public office?

    Didn’t you notice Obama’s choice of DENNIS ROSS to be our envoy to IRAN, fer crapsakes? How ill-advised is THAT? Nobody’s that stupid, least of all Obama. So what do you suppose INDUCED him to make that choice?

    Really. There is very solid ground to assert the power of the Israel Lobby. You have to be asleep to miss it.

  • atheo says:

    I’d like our Israel lobby apologist to explain this reality as presented by marketwatch:

    Senators call for block of arms deals with OPEC

    By Moming Zhou
    April 24, 2008(MarketWatch) – Five U.S. Senators on Thursday called for holding up multimillion dollar arms deals with Saudi Arabia and other OPEC members if the cartel refuses to increase its oil production. “The Saudis have to understand this is a two-way street,” said Senator Charles Schumer. “We provide them weapons, our troops provide them protection, and then they rake us over the coals when it comes to oil.” The other four senators are Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Bob Casey (D-PA), and Mary Landrieu (D-LA). The Bush Administration should use its leverage with the members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries to increase oil supplies, or Congress will act, they said.

    ~~~

    In retrospect we know that oil supplies were more than adequate and that there existed a bubble in crude pricing which originated in N.Y. What was the true motive behind Schumer’s position and what exactly did the MIC do to slap him into line? Why didn’t they crush his impudent Zionist face?

  • mike d says:

    The internet is littered with fabrications. If he is so often mistaken, LETS SEE IT. These arguments that lack any base are vacuous.

    On the issue of the Israel Lobby, the question has not been answered. Please answer the question, and address the specific issue of Israel-China weapons sales, where Israel was humiliated.

    Here is the opinion of a friend of mine…

    More importantly, corporation figureheads do not control shit, but rather serve investors and the market. Even though the Jews may (please, provide a source) represent other positions of power, it is definitely not the majority. For that reason, his (the author above) arguments do not follow.

    To be honest, this report is pretty sketchy as well historically-speaking and have been addressed before. First, US’s relationship in Israel was realized well after 1948. It began, after 1967, and Israel was used to counter the rise of Arab nationalism. US opposed Israel, along with France and UK, in 1951 in the war against Egypt. Economic sanctions were threatened and thus Egypt was left alone.

    In 1967, US maintained a passive position, but was willing to establish stronger ties with Israel since their rivals, Egypt and Syria, were aligned with the USSR. Also, US maintained a strong relationship with Jordan, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia. One, however, can argue that Israeli-US ties began to exceed the Arab neighbours after 1967 and it becomes more apparent during Reagan’s second term, with US spares facilities in Israel.

    What is hardly suggested is that Israel does strike emotions amongst the Arab community and has been used to unify the population, while maintaining internal destructive policies. That is a reason why Arab states support the Palestinian resistance through proxies.

    But yes, this setup is benefiting US greatly and it’s hard to deny it. US aid to Israel is used to purchase American arms which, in return, forces Arab neighbours to seek similar, often superior, US arms. This arms race dynamic has led to a development of an internal security complex that is highly Western.

    In other words, the stability of oil-rich Arab states are dependent on Western technology. However, technology alone cannot keep these nations under control. That is why nationalism revolving around the Israeli-Palestine issue is used and it is extremely effective.

    Lockheed Martin et al allows the Israeli Lobby to project its interests for that reason. The oil-rich Arab counterpart, unlike Israel and Egypt, does not depend on Western aid. The reason why Israel is allowed to run its crimes is because it exasperates this complex.

  • atheo says:

    “Even though the Jews may (please, provide a source) represent other positions of power, it is definitely not the majority. For that reason, his (the author above) arguments do not follow.”

    Perhaps you should acquaint your friend with the concept of plurality.

  • atheo says:

    “Please answer the question, and address the specific issue of Israel-China weapons sales, where Israel was humiliated.”

    mike d, let’s look at James Petras’ answer to your question:

    Chomsky fails to assess the power of the Lobby in comparison with other institutional forces. For example top US Generals have frequently complained that Israeli armed forces receive new high tech military hardware before it has become operational in the US. Thanks to the Lobby, their complaints are rarely heeded. US defense industries (some of whom have joint production contracts with Israeli military industries) have bitterly complained of Israel’s unfair competition, violation of trade agreements and the illegal sale of high tech weaponry to China. Under threat of losing all their lucrative ties with the Pentagon, Israel cancelled sales to China, while the Lobby looked on.

    mike d,

    Why do you claim that it was Israel that was “humiliated”? The mere fact of the outrageous transfer of U.S. technology to China is an extreme example of the hubris of Jewish power over the U.S.

    http://petras.lahaine.org/articulo.php?c=1&more=1&p=7

  • mike d says:

    You did not answer the question. Why doesn’t microsoft and Raytheon et al destroy the lobby if its working against American “interests”?

    Chomsky has probably the best understanding of the influence of domestic concentrations of power on state policy… he’s documented it countless times, and deserves every respect on the subject matter.

    So answer his question on that; thus far, nobody has.

  • m.idrees says:

    Please answer the question, and address the specific issue of Israel-China weapons sales, where Israel was humiliated.

    Not really sure what you are arguing here? You could also cite the example of Jonathan Pollard. Israel can only receive support so long as it is seen to be serving a US interest. Passing its military technology to a rival, or spying on it for its adversary is hardly the best way to prove this, don’t you think?

    The way the Israel lobby operates is to generate a consensus, whether anyone believes it or not, that Israel is a ‘strategic asset’. But whereas with the congress it has to spent millions trying to convince it, with Chomsky all such expenses appear to have been made superfluous.

    More importantly, corporation figureheads do not control shit, but rather serve investors and the market. Even though the Jews may (please, provide a source) represent other positions of power, it is definitely not the majority. For that reason, his (the author above) arguments do not follow.

    Not sure again what you are talking about. Jews provide more than 50% of the funding for the Dem party and more than 30% for the GOP. Do you think all that comes without a quid pro quo? The highest single donors to both party are Jewish (Sheldon Adelson, Haim Saban), and the one thing they both have in common is their absolute committment to Zionism.

    First, US’s relationship in Israel was realized well after 1948. It began, after 1967, and Israel was used to counter the rise of Arab nationalism.

    That is what I call a load of ignorant crap. Well after ’48 eh? Do you know who Truman campaign’s three main financiers were? Do you know what twas their demand?

    Do you know that Nasser (Mr. Arab Nationaism) was assisted in his coup against King Farouq by the CIA? Do you know that Arab Nationalism started off friendly towards the US? Do you know when and why he turned to the Soviets? If you don’t, then go educate yourself. Pick up Andrew and Leslie Cockburn’s Dangerous Liaisons, or Seymour Hersh’s Samson Option for a start.

    US opposed Israel, along with France and UK, in 1951 in the war against Egypt. Economic sanctions were threatened and thus Egypt was left alone.

    There were no wars in ’51. You are talking about ’56. Eisenhower ordered Israel to withdraw, because, first, Eisehnower felt insulted because he was kept in the dark about the attacks, and secondly — can you guess? — US wanted friendly relations with Egypt and the Arabs.

    In 1967, US maintained a passive position, but was willing to establish stronger ties with Israel since their rivals, Egypt and Syria, were aligned with the USSR.

    As a matter of fact, US tried its best to thwart Israeli aggression. And, you didn’t answer, when and why did Egypt and Syria turn to the USSR?

    US aid to Israel is used to purchase American arms which, in return, forces Arab neighbours to seek similar, often superior, US arms. This arms race dynamic has led to a development of an internal security complex that is highly Western.

    As i said, you don’t know what you are talking about. Which Arab neighbour has ‘superior arms’? Do you know the difference between an Israel and a Saudi Arabia purchasing US arms? Saudis pay for theirs, Israel’s are underwritten by the US taxpayer. Surely, you can’t be so thick as to believe that US would promise $30b worth of Arms to Israel only so it could sell $20b worth of inferior arms to the Saudis in 2007?

  • atheo says:

    mike d,

    Iv’e answered your question but you have not answered mine:

    Who holds the purse strings that the industrialists rely on, both in finance and DOD purchasing?

  • 99 says:

    Oh, fer crapsakes, that bit about Microsoft, et al. pulling up stakes if it were against American interests is — on its face — CRAP. If they are hauling in a profit, they are not going to stop! Will point out to anyone asking that it is ILLEGAL for them to stop! It’s illegal for a company to boycott Israel. It’s illegal for a corporation to do something that will mess with their returns to investors. They wouldn’t do it anyway because they’re capitalists first and philanthropists, oh, say, tenth!

    GET A LIFE!

    Were you born last week?

    And here is another brick in the Israel Lobby power wall:

    http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/01/mazin-qumsiyeh-writes-in-an-emailassociated-press-story-the-two-men-selected-to-serve-as-hillary-clintons-deputy-secretarie.html

  • mike d says:

    My friend is kind of an expert. Will be glad to see your response mr.idrees.

    ***Not sure again what you are talking about. Jews provide more than 50% of the funding for the Dem party and more than 30% for the GOP. Do you think all that comes without a quid pro quo? The highest single donors to both party are Jewish (Sheldon Adelson, Haim Saban), and the one thing they both have in common is their absolute committment to Zionism.***

    Tell that individual to provide sources. In the end,

    Quote
    ***There were no wars in ‘51. You are talking about ‘56. Eisenhower ordered Israel to withdraw, because, first, Eisehnower felt insulted because he was kept in the dark about the attacks, and secondly — can you guess? — US wanted friendly relations with Egypt and the Arabs.***

    That doesn’t change that fact. The fact is American politics is controlled by the GDP

    Quote
    ***As i said, you don’t know what you are talking about. Which Arab neighbour has ’superior arms’? Do you know the difference between an Israel and a Saudi Arabia purchasing US arms? Saudis pay for theirs, Israel’s are underwritten by the US taxpayer. Surely, you can’t be so thick as to believe that US would promise $30b worth of Arms to Israel only so it could sell $20b worth of inferior arms to the Saudis in 2007?**

    Fool, the F-16E with AESA (purchased by UAE) and E-3 AWACS purchased by Saudi Arabia is superior. Israel’s edge largely comes from its indigenous hardware such as the Arrow-II, PHALCON, and various other missiles.

    That being said, Egypt also receives aid from US (for the same reason) even though Israel receives a lot more at a per capita basis (for obvious reasons).

    Quote
    ***Who holds the purse strings that the industrialists rely on, both in finance and DOD purchasing?***

    President (mike d), I don’t know why you let him run this argument. Who holds the purse strings? Please take a look at my thread on pension funds and the >3 trillion in available funds held by Arab states. My point is simple, US economy is hardly controlled by Jews.

    This individual is merely developing on popular opinion, which, really, has no merit in the real world. Go PM Wiseman and ask for a source on this matter. He can thoroughly debunk this nonsense.

    One more thing, why the fuck isn’t this guy providing sources to his claims?

    That is all.

  • atheo says:

    Ahhh yes, lets all drum our lips and pretend that Jews are proportionally represented in civilian Pentagon administration, wall street brokerages, union and private pension fund direction, and endowment financial administration.

    It’s so much easier than facing reality.

    By the way James Petras’ several recent books cover these facts in excruciating detail. Sit a spell and rethink your hasbara, Americans are living in the real world in their daily lives and won’t be fooled by your lies.

  • Freeborn says:

    Those who give credence to the idea that Washington has fallen under the Zionist spell would do well to revisit the Protocols.

    “The administrators who we shall choose from among the public,with strict regard to their capacities for servile obedience,will not be persons trained in the arts of government,and will therefore easily become pawns in our game in the hands of men of learning and genius who will be their advisers,specialists bred and reared from early childhood to rule the affairs of the whole world”.

    Isn’t this the dual nationality Zionist mafia that has been dominant in Washington since the Clinton years?

    Most subscribers to the theory of the preeminence of the Lobby would run a mile before they cited the Protocols to support the idea.

    After all the Protocols were faked weren’t they?

    The same people would also likewise shun Holocaust deniers for the merest suggestion that we have all been conned over decades into believing in the unique victimhood ascribed to the Jews in WW2.

    It seems when it comes to confronting a system of disinformation (and this system is planned in the Protocols too)some people believe they have too much invested in the said system to take their arguments to their logical conclusion.

    Still we can be sure that Chomsky,being an adherent of the official 9/11 account,is highly unreliable on the Lobby too and deserves his gatekeeper status.

    One of the strongest cases made for the all-powerful Lobby and Israel having outlived its useful strategic status to the US is a Canadian called Greg Felton in The Host and the Parasite.

    Yet before the idea that oil as a US war goal no longer applies and has been superceded by a reckless compulsion to serve Israeli interests (and this is what Felton argues has been the case since 1980)-think again.

    Even Felton admits that the US and Israel signed an agreement long ago in which the US undertook to maintain oil supplies to Israel notwithstanding any US domestic needs.

    He also concedes that the Iraqi oil prize has been used by the US to honour this long-standing agreement.

    However my own feeling is that with the increased involvement of the Russian mafia in US/Israeli affairs now augmenting the entrenched power of the Federal Reserve-based synarchy the case for the Lobby having become dangerously dominant is unanswerable.

  • atheo says:

    Freeborn,

    The fact is that we don’t need to “quote” the protocals. Also, even Mark Weber is now questioning the relevance of holocaust revisionism, and his question is not rhetorical:

    How Relevant is Holocaust Revisionism?

    http://atheonews.blogspot.com/2009/01/how-relevant-is-holocaust-revisionism.html

    Addressing the oil promise made to Israel, one needs to remember that oil is only strategic in the event of total war and in the presence of overwhelming naval power. Thus there is no possible strategic oil threat to the US, however it could be concievable that Israel could find US naval protection useful.

  • Freeborn says:

    Atheo-many thanks for the link.

    Maybe you didn’t find time to read the admirable reply to Weber’s essay questioning the value of Holocaust revisionism by Wendy Campbell.

    What a pity.

    In her cogently argued piece she makes the case for Holocaust revisionism rather better than Weber makes his indecently self-interested and threadbare case against it.

    Campbell’s implication that when so-called “progressives”,especially those career-minded individuals like Weber who work in universities, decline to engage in Holocaust research on the specious grounds that it can yield no further benefit to the anti-Zionist cause or the ever-increasing number of victims of Israeli atrocities,they are monstrously short-changing and disabling the anti-Israel movement is clear.

    The outright timidity of such progressives is immediately obvious when set against the current backcloth of images of barbarity on a Biblical/Talmudic scale in Palestine and their undeniable resemblance to the WW2 images of destruction wrought by the Nazis on their enemies.

    Historically accounting for the resemblance between these cruelties is now crucial if we are to make any headway on behalf of the victims.

    Even a cursory glance at the evidence of the identity of interest between Nazis and Zionists would lead Weber and his ilk to the irresistible conclusion,drawn by Hannah Arendt and numerous others since,that discovering what the Zionists did for the Jews during WW2 and focussing on that-would be akin to finding that missing piece in the jig-saw.

    Sweeping aside the glaring textual aporia in the official archival accounts of the “Jewish” Holocaust and those behind it we might now find it highly suggestive that German Zionists were the sole party within the Nazi state permitted to recruit.

    Again where did the Yellow Star come from?

    German Zionists that’s who.

    These people subscribed to a body of Jewish supremacist Talmudic Law and prophecy that most Western Jews abhorred.It was this nationalist and ethnically separatist ideal that prompted Rabbi Joachim Prinz,for example to support the Nuremberg proscriptions on intermarriage in 1933.

    And the ghettoes?

    They had worked in Russia to assist the Levitical rabbinate in its bid to maintain their separatist stranglehold on the Eastern Askenazi.It was here that Zionist mythology festered and was transmitted as ancient Law and prophecy.

    Even in its ancient OT form,in Deuteronomy and Ezekiel for example,the Talmudic prophecy that underlies Zionism is revealed as a transparently nationalist and political project rather than as the merely religious one it masquerades to be.

    Doubtless the Zionists and Rothschild agents behind the Young Turk take-over and subsequent Armenian genocide would like it if progressives colluded in the airbrushing of these episodes from history.

    The Croatian Ustasi who massacred both Serbs and Jews during WW2 probably sleep soundly today because it suited Anglo-US elites and the Vatican that few people had the stomach to revisit these events when they wanted decades later to balkanize Yugoslavia and denigrate the Serbs.

    While we’re about it lets indulge in a little more amnesia shall we re-Rwanda and its “genocide” in 1994? Let’s forget that the killing of Hutu (and Tutsi)civilians began,and that continues unabated in Congo and across the Great Lakes region unabated today started in 1990 when Anglo-US elites encouraged and trained Kagame’s Tutsi militia to invade Rwanda so the Templesmans et al of this world could start a bout of corporate looting throughout the region.

    And Holocaust-denial i.e.refusing to subscribe to the official Hotel Rwanda accounts of the genocide exists as a criminal offence in Kagame’s Uganda today whereby our Western-sponsored proxy stifles all dissent.

    No matter that the official figures for Tutsi dead exceed the Tutsi population in Rwanda at the time.Or let’s ignore the fact that Hutus who are still dying in tens of thousands today actually died during the genocide in a 2:1 ratio as per Tutsi.

    At the end of the day the progressives who abjure from challenging official accounts ought to remember that even the Monty Python team had the temerity to ask:

    What did the Romans Ever Do For Us?

    We might now ask instead of following those at the UN in 1947 who cathected the state of Israel by (understandably in simple human terms)thinking solely about what Hitler had done to the Jews-

    Just what did the Zionists do for the Jews?

    The truth is always enabling while ignoring it and colluding in its airbrushing does a disservice to all the victims on whose behalf we wish to speak.

    On this basis alone Holocaust research that leads like most research worthy of the name that begats revisionism is worth it.

  • mike d says:

    One more thing, who are these individuals that post on that forum? If they are political science students; I must say, I really feel sorry for that discipline.

    US’s passive position vs. Israel prior to 1967 (post, involved Israel shifting towards an Armed Forces that was American, plus much greater aid) is obvious. To suggest that it’s due to some small minority population ignores the principle of parsimony.

    In other words, US opposed Arab nationalism, because Arab consciousness, if allowed to flourish, would develop into a democratic force. US, along with the West, opposes this change, because democracy in the oil-rich nations would affect Western interests.

    Observe Operation Ajax which was spearheaded after Mossadeq entered power. This is a fact that Chomsky acknowledges, about US. It, along with the West, opposes the development of functional and indigenous democratic institutions within the third world. That clearly does not run with US’s economic interests and thus what we see today.

    More importantly, the democratic sphere of US is only one facet of the power structure. The corporate power sphere is another one, but so is the military sphere. One can argue that other department such as education, the prison-industrial complex, are players as well.

    These spheres constantly compete and guess why, bargain, with each other, with regards to power distribution. The corporate realm is run by profit and even if the CEO is Jewish, the shareholders will not approve decisions that are not profitable. Most firms in the US are run by wealthy Anglos or the middle class through pension funds and what not.

    Last, military quality. Tell those clowns that Israel, even during 1967, used a military that was largely non-American. This includes the Mirage III/V, the Super/ Mysteres. The Egyptian Mig-21s were available in larger numbers and imo, superior to the Mirage III. Regardless, both are within the same class, and if poor infrastructure wasn’t present on the Egyptian side, 1967 would’ve not gone the way it did.

    ** friend.

  • m.idrees says:

    My friend is kind of an expert. Will be glad to see your response mr.idrees.

    ***Not sure again what you are talking about. Jews provide more than 50% of the funding for the Dem party and more than 30% for the GOP. Do you think all that comes without a quid pro quo? The highest single donors to both party are Jewish (Sheldon Adelson, Haim Saban), and the one thing they both have in common is their absolute committment to Zionism.***

    Tell that individual to provide sources. In the end,

    So you are engaging in a debate backed on the ignorance of someone even more ill-informed than you? You call someone an ‘expert’ who needs evidence for something as well known as this? Does he also require evidence for the fact that the earth is not flat?

    Check out J.J. Goldberg’s book, Richard Cohen’s articles in the Washingotn Post, Mearsheimer & Walt’s book (p. 163), check out Petras’s Power of the Israel in the US (p.13).

    In other words, US opposed Arab nationalism, because Arab consciousness, if allowed to flourish, would develop into a democratic force. US, along with the West, opposes this change, because democracy in the oil-rich nations would affect Western interests.

    So you are not just factually challenged, you also have trouble reading? Did you actually read what is written in the article above? Did you have trouble understanding the fact that Arab nationalism was a RESPONSE to Israeli provocations? (which did not being in ’67). Are you really that thick that you have trouble accepting the fact that Nasser’s coup was aided by the CIA?

    It is pretty pointless talking to ignoramuses who don’t know the most rudimentary facts yet insist on shoving their faith-based nonsense down everyone elses throats. Educate yourself before you embarrass yourself again.

  • atheo says:

    AIPAC itself brags that it controls 2/3 of the House of Representatives and 1/2 of the Senate, as reported by Ha’aretz on 3/27/05. They also proudly claim to be the most influencial lobby in the US.

    mike d offers nothing but gibberish about long gone “Anglo” power, he seems to inhabit a fantasy world in which shareholders exercise power over corporate managers and functional “competing intersts” pursue only purely profit motives. Pathetic dogma.

  • mike d says:

    It is quite transparent who is “dogmatic”, and furthermore myopic. You’ve both accepted this convenient, though fraudulent, doctrine that has little basis, and many prominent scholars (from Gilbert Achcar, Norman Finkelstein, Stephen Zunes, to every other sane analyst) have illustrated to have marginal merit.

    Chomsky, above all, has the greatest understanding of American policy formation; to doubt that is simply ignorant.

    AS to who the fool is, you’re the one providing pages as sources. Primary data please. Access it and supply it, or drop out of the debate. The onus is on you to prove these claims. “Jews provide x%” is quite vague and provides no context; that which is imperative to take into consideration for any examination to be worth a second look.

    Moreover, what does it matter if Arab nationalism was a response to Israel? It is still something that the US wanted to dismantle, quite evidently. Funding after 67′ increased by a factor of 4. Also, read the press, in the print “Dissent”, there was hardly a mention of Israel. After 67′, this changed, as did the intellectual culture of the United States, as all were suddenly vehement proponents of Israel: this represented AMERICAN interests, not exclusively Israeli ones.

    As Achcar notes, the notion that the pro-Israel lobby is decisive in policy formation is “phantasmagoric”.

    Lets go back to the point on China. You both have it misconstrued, and self serving. Yes, Israel stepped out of line, adding to your thesis. In 2000, Clinton obstructed the deal with China for Israeli Phalcon airborne early warning system.

    This also happened in 2005, when Israel sold anti-aircraft missiles to China, and China wanted them upgraded by Israel. The pentagon was opposed to increasing Chinese military capacity, and therefore worked to obstruct the deal. They also humiliated Israel by forcing them to write a letter of apology to the United States, lol if that is not revealing, then there is no hope for either of you. The Lobby had its tail between its legs the whole time, and remained (as always) benign in face of American power.

  • m.idrees says:

    Chomsky, above all, has the greatest understanding of American policy formation; to doubt that is simply ignorant.

    Is that an argument, or a love letter? if the latter, then I’m not sure this is the right place for you to be posting these.

    AS to who the fool is, you’re the one providing pages as sources. Primary data please. Access it and supply it, or drop out of the debate. The onus is on you to prove these claims. “Jews provide x%” is quite vague and provides no context;

    Pages as sources — imagine that! What are you going to ask for next? A spaceship for me to prove to you that the earth is not flat?

    As Achcar notes, the notion that the pro-Israel lobby is decisive in policy formation is “phantasmagoric”.

    No shit, he said that? Damn! I should lay all facts and arguments (based on ‘pages as sources’) aside since some ignorant dogmatist called reality ‘phantasmagoric’.

    They also humiliated Israel by forcing them to write a letter of apology to the United States, lol if that is not revealing, then there is no hope for either of you.

    Speaking of humiliations — ‘lol’ — perhaps you slept through the year 2002. Remember the year Sharon went from ‘enough is enough’ to being the ‘man of peace’?

    P.s. out of curiosity, can you read?

  • [...] Source Related: Militant Zionism and the Invasion of Iraq [...]

  • [...] Source Related: Militant Zionism and the Invasion of Iraq [...]

  • [...] Source Related: Militant Zionism and the Invasion of Iraq [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading Oil and the Israel Lobby at P U L S E.

meta

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 7,492 other followers

%d bloggers like this: