|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The usual suspect coalition of conspiracy theorists, the flabby Arab bourgeoisie, fascists and European social-democrats is again raising the question of the "Israel lobby" that supposedly dominates Amerikan foreign policy. Usually progressive James Petras has taken a shot at Chomsky on this question.
1. Petras mistakenly points out the size of U.$. aid to I$rael as some kind of proof of the unnatural importance of the I$rael lobby instead of u.$. imperialist interests. First of all, Petras's numbers are just wrong. I$rael is number one in receiving aid, but it is not getting three times more u.$. aid than the Third World combined.
Egypt alone received $50 billion since 1979.(2) Petras points to $100 billion received by I$rael in the last 40 years. By Petras's reasoning we would have to think that Egypt has the second greatest lobby in the united $tates, an absurdity. The size of aid to Egypt proves that the United $tates is doing exactly what Chomsky said--trying to obtain influence in the Middle East, especially the Egyptian military.
Besides, in the Third World there are no other settler states, except South Africa, which also used to receive aid. I$rael shares that common bond with Amerikans of grabbing land and waging war to keep it. Of course there is a similarity in psychology and culture. I$rael is just a tiny speck of Amerika, a junior version.
2. Petras points to congressional unanimity on I$rael, but Congress is not composed of Jews or I$raelis. Unanimity should be seen as a sign of u.$. imperialist unity or we are talking about the tail wagging the dog.
3. Petras tries to pit I$rael against Big Oil and the flabby Arab bourgeoisie. Obviously Petras does not understand who put the Arab bourgeoisie in state power and why it carries out u.$. wishes. We'd suggest reading about U.$. intelligence's role in threatening and bribing the Arab bourgeoisie, instead of implying that the Arab bourgeoisie is so conciliatory because of what would be a peaceful u.$. policy if not for I$rael. No Arab elite not waging People's War is going to have any leverage against u.$. imperialism.
4. Petras says the united $tates accrues diplomatic disadvantages in the UN over its pro-I$rael policy. Again, the hidden implication is that imperialism ultimately cares about diplomacy instead of determining matters by war.
5. Petras says that I$rael has spent $50 million on Congressional lobbying and garners 90% support. Again, this is not the I$rael lobby but the Rockefeller and similar lobbies shaping foreign policy. Otherwise, we should have to find Egypt carrying out a lobby half the size of I$rael's--an absurdity.
6. Yes, I$rael defeated Cynthia McKinny in Congress. By the same token, Iran chose Reagan in the "October Surprise" that left Jimmy Carter with the hostage crisis in 1980. Geopolitics does matter to politics at home. It does not mean Iran has a more powerful lobby than I$rael if it manages to have its choice of presidents. There is nothing new about Amerikan imperialists' pushing aside outspoken Black politicians in favor of finding more quiet ones. The u.$. imperialists did not have to invent an I$rael lobby for that. Witness the recent furor over McKinny's being pushed around by security as she tries to enter the House buildings.
7. The Egyptian electorate is even less significant than the Jewish one in the united $tates; yet, the billions flow there every year since 1979. Again, the high degree and stability of support in Congress is a sign of united imperialist interest--not a sign of the effectiveness of the Egyptian lobby that it gets so much done with so few votes in New York and Florida.
8. Regarding the neo-cons, yes they have histories with I$rael as Petras says. Yet pointing to the neo-cons actually undermines Petras's thesis. Petras unconsciously implies that it was only Bush Jr.'s election in 2000 that brought the I$rael lobby to power with the neo-cons.
The neo-cons or ZionCons are more an example of u.$. influence flowing into I$rael, not the other way around. I$rael's voting electorate was more to the left-wing of parasitism when I$rael initially formed. People such as Likud Party's Netanyahu are the perfect examples of Amerikan politics penetrating I$rael. Such penetration is in fact far more influential than vice-versa. While I$rael's electorate is very small in the united $tates, ex-Amerikans or dual citizens are a huge proportion of I$rael. In fact, once we exclude I$raeli Arabs, the fact remains that to this day more Jews live in the united $tates alone than in I$rael--over 6 million in the united $tates. According to Wikipedia, 22% of I$raeli Jews are still first-generation Jews from Europe or America. Most Jews in I$rael are still either second or third generation. Thus it is no exaggeration in any sense to think of Amerikan Jews as half the influence in I$rael, but it would be far-fetched to think vice-versa.
9. Here Petras is really off-base. He needs to read MIM Notes more often. He claims Chomsky needs to criticize progressive Jews for supporting the Iraq War. In fact, Jews in the united $tates supported the Iraq War LESS than Amerikan whites on average. That is what our European social-democrat influenced intellectuals do not understand. The average Amerikan white is more gungho ultra-militarist imperialism than the average Jew in the united $tates. These Jews are in fact a better influence on I$rael than the average Amerikan white! Amerikan whites want to go kill Arabs just like other oppressed nations. We can also prove this using Petras's own standards regarding neo-cons. Jews did not vote for Bush! Whites on average did.(3)
People who think Christians are going to see the light do not understand Amerikan politics. Before the land invasion of Iraq only 60% of Jews thought it was a good idea--on the low side for whites. It was 69% of conservative Christians who favored the Iraq War and 80% of Republicans.(4)
Specifically targeting the Jews also inflames our Christian yahoos in the united $tates, because a large portion are real bible-thumpers unlike European Christians. Pat Robertson and company win every time someone targets the Jews specifically because of some words in the prophecy section of the New Testament. Those words are taken seriously here in the Amerikan Heartland.
To make headway with Bible-thumpers in their own language it is again necessary to focus on the united $tates and its president as the possible Satan and anti- Christ of the prophecy. On that issue there is some real division. There is a whole page dedicated to disproving the idea that Iraq is Babylon in the prophecy, but in general the Iraq and u.$. controversy over the prophecy is divisive among Christians. Targeting the Jews for attack is no longer making any traction with u.$. Bible-thumpers, because prophecy said those who harmed the Jews would be punished.(5)
10. True, Harvard and other major research universities are not open to any criticism of I$rael even very mild ones. MIM comrades suffered multiple physical attacks by Zionists at universities in the 1980s. We're sure Chomsky did not support forcing resignation of anyone with a slightly heretical view on I$rael that managed to squeeze into an academy somewhere.
11. Here Petras again voices a very disturbing trend of recent politics in the left-wing of u.$. parasitism--faith in the CIA. MIM does not believe it is an accident that intra-intelligence squabbles are now such a major item of hope for the left-wing of parasitism. Petras claims the CIA was more progressive than the ZionCons--what a basis for an argument! So much for any claim of anti- imperialism by Petras.
Petras should dig harder on the stranglehold of intelligence on all area studies in the united $tates, not just I$rael studies.
12. There is no foreign policy issue--not even Cuba--where the military institution gets its way all the time against the civilians in power in the u.$. government. In all the major powers, "considerations of state" have often taken precedence over narrow military events. Talking otherwise and only in connection to I$rael is both naive and dangerous.
13. No one has done more to expose media blindness on I$rael than Chomsky.
Jews pull above their weight in u.$. journalism and academia.
14. Petras's last point in his polemic against Chomsky is again intra- imperialist, not anti-imperialist:
"a more comprehensive analysis of US interests demonstrates that the costs of supporting Israel far exceed the occasional benefit, whether we consider advantages to US imperial goals or even more so from the vantage point of a democratic foreign policy. With regard to the costly and destructive wars against Iraq, following Israel’s lead and its lobbies, the pro-Israel policy has severely undermined US military capacity to defend the empire."
I$rael is like a U.$. outpost daily threatening Arabs with violence and demonstrating u.$. power. The united $tates is not yet losing any oil business because of I$rael. Quite the contrary, without the improper use of force against Arab governments, other players may have moved in on the business as early as after World War II.
Arguing that the costs outweigh the benefits in terms of oil business is social- democratic or Khruschevite nonsense on imperialism. 1) U.$. imperialism wins business through the use of force, not diplomatic votes at the UN. 2) Cost to what class is important, not overall total cost devoid of the class logic of the situation. By arming both I$rael and Egypt, u.$. imperialism achieves higher profits for arms contractors.
In response to these polemics, Chomsky went to Lebanon to visit with Hezbollah,(6) who he says taught him some things first hand about the situation that he would not have imagined. While there, Chomsky also said Iran would be crazy not to be building nuclear weapons.
In contrast, others taking the Petras line have fouled up the Iran question badly. Those who think the intra-intelligence squabbles with CIA versus neo-cons are so important are now demonstrating against Iran's nuclear energy program and serving as the tail on the Amerikan dog in covert operations now underway in Iran. It's important to understand that flabby Arab bourgeois views are partly to blame for this.
By fantasizing the importance of the I$rael lobby in the united $tates, the revolutionaries and would- be Arab national bourgeoisie decides it can let u.$. imperialism off the hook, because its Christians, workers and oil industry are supposedly about to see the light any minute. This makes it OK to abandon revolutionary struggle and take up u.$. imperialist geopolitical plans instead. Instead, the bottom line is that Amerikans are a labor aristocracy, including a settler oppressor nation that is in fact influencing I$rael, not the other way around. Fascists see it the other way, because they seek to blame the Jews for the oppressiveness and parasitism of oppressor nations, and thereby let whites off the hook.
European social-democrats often take up the tail wags the dog thesis, because by implication this exonerates European imperialism. After all, Europe is allowed to discuss I$rael more objectively as Petras points out, so it is not far from that to saying that there is no lobby and no imperialism in Europe. With the tail wags the dog hypothesis, Europeans can fantasize that their militaries and intelligence agencies are not involved in warmongering and oppression, while I$rael obviously is in a high-profile military struggle. This policy-oriented view of imperialism denies the systematic character of imperialism and in this Chomsky is on the right track, whereas Petras is spreading social-democratic confusions paving the way for conspiracy theories, fascism, the Arab bourgeoisie's flabby political views and capitulation to imperialism. Infected with democratic pluralist theories, Petras puts lobbying for policy in a central theoretical position. We do agree with him that pluralist theorists who sing out of tune with I$rael and the Pentagon should be more prevalent in the academic world, but we do not share that sort of view ourselves.
The I$rael lobby exists, but it is a sideshow. There is no Arab bourgeoisie to lobby Amerikans differently and that's another reason the I$rael lobby stands out--too many Arab lackeys. The Arab lackeys can lead the lifestyle of the Western rich, but otherwise they lack the military, intelligence and media tools to do more than that.
Much as the Arab bourgeoisie does not want to hear it, there is no historical basis for Amerikans to treat them with the love that Amerikans treated South African whites and settlers in Australia and New Zealand. The pattern of genocide for land followed by imperialist exploitation of the world in the guise of democracy is the preferred choice of Amerikans who treat Arab countries as Third World, and thus far get away with it.
Grabbing Iraq's oil attracted a predictable Anglo coalition of England and Australia plus various u.$. puppet states. McGill University has had to close down the topic of Israel on the entire campus, so shall we say the Israel lobby is strong in Kanada or shall we note that it did not go into the Iraq War. Then again, the Israel lobby as an explanation for Blair's and Howard's activity in the Iraq War is weak. If we go to Italy and start talking about Berlusconi's sending troops to Iraq as an example of the I$rael lobby, we are going to get far off course.
Notes:
1. http://www.uruknet.info/?p=22210
2. http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0412/p07s01-wome.html
3. 66% of Jews opposed the Iraq War in 2004 and they supported Kerry overwhelmingly.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39745-2004Sep21.html
Whites were the only ethnic group to vote in a majority for Bush.
4. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1010-02.htm ;
There is also some accurate information here in an article:
http://www.washingtonjewishweek.com/main.asp?SectionID=4&SubSectionID=14&ArticleID=4555&TM=77294.98
5. http://www.tribulation.com/babylon.htm ;
http://www.bible-codes.org/bible-code-prophecy-mene-tekel-babylon-Saddam.htm ;
here is the example we need to understand:
http://www.escapeallthesethings.com/america-mystery-babylon-great.htm
6. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3252326,00.html;
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/717645.html