Eclipsed from the headlines by the ongoing carnage, there is an active
civil resistance in Iraq that opposes the occupation, the torture regime
it protects, and the jihadi and Ba'athist 'resistance' alike.
Submitted by Seth (not verified) on Tue, 05/03/2005 - 21:41.
ON Blankfort and the Lobby
BTW I left out a few words in last post.. Thus I meant to state that Jeff was selective in his presentation of evidence thereby unfairly claiming that Chomsky does not hold Israel morally accountable. Chomsky's statements as Bill points out hardly constitute an exculpation of Israel.But they sometimes resemble the comments of those who seek to place the MORAL responsibility for Israel's actions primarily upon the US.
I did not read the piece Bill wrote on the Wall. However his position here is jumbled. OK I was careless. Bill did not use the term "WASPs." Rather it was "Goy power" he invoked. He said that the Zionists are allowing themselves to become "dupes for GOY power." I fail to see the difference. He repeatedly talks about "scapegoating the Jews." By which he seems to mean blaming Sharon and Wolfowitz and AIPAC for the direction of the US Mideast policy. Are they THE Jews? This is the same kind of tactic the Zionists use:Anyone who attacks THEM is really anti-Semitic, i.e. anti-Jewish–or a self-hating Jew. One gets again the impression that the analysis of many leftist Jews is influenced by a message powerfully imprinted on all Jews' brains at a tender young age: Jews are innocent. Eternally innocent. In Bill's case and that of other critics of Israel this premise has been transformed in the face of Israeli ethnocide (I won't use the term genocide in order to avoid emotional complications ) to: "Israel is MORE innocent." That is:More innocent than the goyim who control the US. Thus Israel–and its Lobby-- must be construed at worst as a passive pawn in the hands of US imperialism. Its culpability lies only in acquiescing to the demands of US imperialism. If you construe the relationship in a more dialectical manner then you are ipso facto,Bill implies, a self-hating Jew or a Jew hater. Thus Bill writes:"Will the Israeli leadership ever realize that playing attack dog for US imperialism is utterly counter-productive to the longterm survival and security of their own state?" But it is the expansion of the State that is the goal of Israeli leadership. The goal of a corporate capitalist state should never be confused with the "longterm" security of its citizens. Uri Avnery knows that.His analysis of current developments is similar to Jeff's in some ways. It was obvious back in the 50s when Ben-Gurion was already plotting to covertly install a "friendly" regime in Lebanon. (See Israel's Sacred Terrorism by Lydia Rokeach.) Bill writes as if the problem is mere ignorance or naivete ( a form of innocence) of the Israeli leadership. Sharon and Peres are no more naive than Bush or Clinton. Once again the psychological imperative to assert Israel is more innocent obscures the manipulative role Israel has played since the Balfour Declaration in obtaining imperial support for its dispossession of the Palestinians– this is not peculiar to Weinberg. As Blankfort has shown itr is common on the left. It is axiomatic for Tikkun. Yet the ethocide of the Palestinians cannot be laid at the feet of the US. They are accessories–not the primary perp. Of course Bill admits as such re 1948--since the US was not Israel's patron back then but his lack of an historical analysis is salient. For example throughout the 20s and 30s the Zionists were plotting to establish a Jewish state. When Ben-Gurion accepted a lesser offer from the British he responded to his critics: "Don't pay any attention to what the goyim [or the Jews]say. Pay attention to what the Jews do." This pattern repeats itself again and again.
Of course the US would NOT be supporting Israel if it was calling for a socialist revolution. There has to be some sense of a harmony of interests. I think Jeff plays that down--Israel's allure as the antagonist of Arab nationalism decades ago. However WHAT is in the interests of US capitalism? Was invading Iraq? Highly dubious, considering Eagleberger, Scowcroft and a bunch of Generals opposed the war at first. The Likudniks in the Bush Cabinet (many former advisers to the Likud Party in Israel) and Sharon sold it to an eager Dubya as in the interests of the US–despite its obvious disadvantages. Clearly the Jewish lobby pulls both the Congress and now the Executive to the right. Here I disagree with Jeff. I don't think Bush- 2 ever had a serious conflict with Israel–he is the first neo-con President. The Likudniks have managed to pull the entire country to the Right. Even Kerry originally was inclined to criticize Bush's Israel policy. He actually talked abvout sending Jimmy Carter to the Mideast to negotiate a treaty. The Jewish Lobby made it clear that such talk was unacceptable and Kerry started praising Sharon. This incident reinforces Jeff's point about the influence of the Lobby. Congressman Moran was correct: Had the Jewish establishment opposed the war on Iraq, it would not have occurred. Thus even the definition of US national interest is influenced by the Lobby, which of course is now augmented by Christian Zionists. This is a wealthy highly organized lobby that has prevailed even when US Presidents were inclined to rein in Israel–as Blankfort shows in his analysis of Bush Pere..Weinberg's insists that Israel MUST be construed as merely a tool of US imperialism--otherwise one is supporting anti-Semitism!. His analysis is based on a willful blindness to the enormous power that a group of right wing Jews have managed to assert over the direction of US policy. For the left to adopt a policy based on wishful thinking about Israeli innocence--an a priori position,not based on empirical data-- in the name of combating anti-Semitism is ludicrous. Left wing Jews can defeat anti-Semitism not by insisting that poor naive Israel is a mere pawn of the US but by distinguishing being Jewish from being a Zionist.
»
Reply
google2
For more breaking news and world events, seeThe first open media site where anyone can report from anywhere
Advertisements:
Propaganda:
The inconvenient facts and unanswered questions surrounding the attacks are legion, but the endemic sloppiness of the self-styled "researchers" is delegitimizing the entire project of critiquing the "official version." The ostentatiously named "Truth movement" is not clearing the air, but muddying the water.
WW4 Report pamphlets
WAR AT THE CROSSROADS
An Historical Guide Through the Balkan Labyrinth
The Balkan region is intensely multicultural - a point of crossroads and clash for some of the world's major religions, cultural spheres, and economic systems. While there have been vicious wars in Balkan history, these have taken place in the context of manipulation by imperial powers and the self-serving local leaders who cater to them.
opensource technology and the people of Sundays Energy
Blankfort, the Lobby and Jewish Innocence
ON Blankfort and the Lobby
BTW I left out a few words in last post.. Thus I meant to state that Jeff was selective in his presentation of evidence thereby unfairly claiming that Chomsky does not hold Israel morally accountable. Chomsky's statements as Bill points out hardly constitute an exculpation of Israel.But they sometimes resemble the comments of those who seek to place the MORAL responsibility for Israel's actions primarily upon the US.
I did not read the piece Bill wrote on the Wall. However his position here is jumbled. OK I was careless. Bill did not use the term "WASPs." Rather it was "Goy power" he invoked. He said that the Zionists are allowing themselves to become "dupes for GOY power." I fail to see the difference. He repeatedly talks about "scapegoating the Jews." By which he seems to mean blaming Sharon and Wolfowitz and AIPAC for the direction of the US Mideast policy. Are they THE Jews? This is the same kind of tactic the Zionists use:Anyone who attacks THEM is really anti-Semitic, i.e. anti-Jewish–or a self-hating Jew. One gets again the impression that the analysis of many leftist Jews is influenced by a message powerfully imprinted on all Jews' brains at a tender young age: Jews are innocent. Eternally innocent. In Bill's case and that of other critics of Israel this premise has been transformed in the face of Israeli ethnocide (I won't use the term genocide in order to avoid emotional complications ) to: "Israel is MORE innocent." That is:More innocent than the goyim who control the US. Thus Israel–and its Lobby-- must be construed at worst as a passive pawn in the hands of US imperialism. Its culpability lies only in acquiescing to the demands of US imperialism. If you construe the relationship in a more dialectical manner then you are ipso facto,Bill implies, a self-hating Jew or a Jew hater. Thus Bill writes:"Will the Israeli leadership ever realize that playing attack dog for US imperialism is utterly counter-productive to the longterm survival and security of their own state?" But it is the expansion of the State that is the goal of Israeli leadership. The goal of a corporate capitalist state should never be confused with the "longterm" security of its citizens. Uri Avnery knows that.His analysis of current developments is similar to Jeff's in some ways. It was obvious back in the 50s when Ben-Gurion was already plotting to covertly install a "friendly" regime in Lebanon. (See Israel's Sacred Terrorism by Lydia Rokeach.) Bill writes as if the problem is mere ignorance or naivete ( a form of innocence) of the Israeli leadership. Sharon and Peres are no more naive than Bush or Clinton. Once again the psychological imperative to assert Israel is more innocent obscures the manipulative role Israel has played since the Balfour Declaration in obtaining imperial support for its dispossession of the Palestinians– this is not peculiar to Weinberg. As Blankfort has shown itr is common on the left. It is axiomatic for Tikkun. Yet the ethocide of the Palestinians cannot be laid at the feet of the US. They are accessories–not the primary perp. Of course Bill admits as such re 1948--since the US was not Israel's patron back then but his lack of an historical analysis is salient. For example throughout the 20s and 30s the Zionists were plotting to establish a Jewish state. When Ben-Gurion accepted a lesser offer from the British he responded to his critics: "Don't pay any attention to what the goyim [or the Jews]say. Pay attention to what the Jews do." This pattern repeats itself again and again.
Of course the US would NOT be supporting Israel if it was calling for a socialist revolution. There has to be some sense of a harmony of interests. I think Jeff plays that down--Israel's allure as the antagonist of Arab nationalism decades ago. However WHAT is in the interests of US capitalism? Was invading Iraq? Highly dubious, considering Eagleberger, Scowcroft and a bunch of Generals opposed the war at first. The Likudniks in the Bush Cabinet (many former advisers to the Likud Party in Israel) and Sharon sold it to an eager Dubya as in the interests of the US–despite its obvious disadvantages. Clearly the Jewish lobby pulls both the Congress and now the Executive to the right. Here I disagree with Jeff. I don't think Bush- 2 ever had a serious conflict with Israel–he is the first neo-con President. The Likudniks have managed to pull the entire country to the Right. Even Kerry originally was inclined to criticize Bush's Israel policy. He actually talked abvout sending Jimmy Carter to the Mideast to negotiate a treaty. The Jewish Lobby made it clear that such talk was unacceptable and Kerry started praising Sharon. This incident reinforces Jeff's point about the influence of the Lobby. Congressman Moran was correct: Had the Jewish establishment opposed the war on Iraq, it would not have occurred. Thus even the definition of US national interest is influenced by the Lobby, which of course is now augmented by Christian Zionists. This is a wealthy highly organized lobby that has prevailed even when US Presidents were inclined to rein in Israel–as Blankfort shows in his analysis of Bush Pere..Weinberg's insists that Israel MUST be construed as merely a tool of US imperialism--otherwise one is supporting anti-Semitism!. His analysis is based on a willful blindness to the enormous power that a group of right wing Jews have managed to assert over the direction of US policy. For the left to adopt a policy based on wishful thinking about Israeli innocence--an a priori position,not based on empirical data-- in the name of combating anti-Semitism is ludicrous. Left wing Jews can defeat anti-Semitism not by insisting that poor naive Israel is a mere pawn of the US but by distinguishing being Jewish from being a Zionist.