The Book is being severely criticized because it seems to confirm long-held anti-Semitic beliefs about undue Jewish political power. But in reality, the authors premise, and conclusions, are all wrong, or more precisely, backwards. Mearheimer and Walt seem to know little about the Middle East, Israel's role in US foreign policy, and what are core US goals and strategic interests in the region. They argue that this is a case of the 'tail wagging the dog'--a small client state and its allies in thee US leading the American government to engage in policies that are manifestly against its interests because of undue political power.
But this is nonsense. In fact, it is the other way around. The United States has been using Israel to fulfill its policies objectives for decades, from its role as a regional"pillar" (along with Saudi Arabia and Iran) in US containment strategies against the Soviet Union in the 1970s up until last summer, when the Bush administration encouraged a disastrous proxy war with Hezbollah as a way of testing the weapons and tactics of Iran, Hezbollah's main sponsor, in the event of a US attack.
Mearsheimer and Walt's book is also naive. It assumes that US political and economic leaders, especially those close to the Bush Administration, want to build peace and democracy in the Middle East, and that therefore supporting Israel's occupation hurts this cause. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. As I showed in great detail in my last book, "Why They Don't Hate Us," and my new book on the Oslo peace process"An Impossible Peace: Oslo and the Burdens of History," the United States has never supported democracy and peace in the region. Instead, its strategic goals center around the perpetuation of continuous but manageable levels of conflict, punctuated every decade or so by major wars, as the way to ensure relatively high oil prices, control over key petroleum reserves or at least denying China uncontrolled access to them, disproportionate level of arms spending across the region (by far the highest in the world, with the majority of funds spent on US weapons systems), and the continued survival of the authoritarian regimes that ensure the perpetuation of a system that has generated over a trillion dollars in profits to US oil and arms countries just since September 11.
This pattern was made evident most recently by the announcement of a $20 billion arms sale to the Saudis, which was naturally compensated for by a $30 billion sale to Israel (much of it paid to US arms companies by the US government in one of the largest corporate welfare schemes in history, under the guise of "aid to Israel") and at least $20 billion more to Egypt (much of that also in the form of aid paid directly to defense manufacturers) and other allies. That's $70 billion for US weapons manufacturers in the next decade or so, just to keep the "balance of power" in the region.
Viewed this way, the end of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, by all accounts one of the main fulcrums of the larger problems of the region, would be a strategic disaster for the United States. It would lead to lower oil prices, less spending on arms, and a loss of whatever slim levels of legitimacy is possessed by Arab dictators and monarchs, and open up the chance the the people of the region would decide to spend their money on things other than buying up overpriced US weapons, consumer debt, and high end real estate.
The authors have it wrong: it's not Americans who are suffering from undo influence of the Jewish Lobby; it's Israelis and Palestinians, and now the families of American servicemen and women deployed in the conflict zones of the "arc of instability" in the Middle East and Central Asia--not to mention the citizens of the Middle East who are the most direct victims of Bush's present policies--who are suffering so that some of the most powerful and wealthy corporations in world history can continue to reap hundreds of billions of dollars in profits without anyone questioning why this system continues and whose interests it actually benefits.
One thing's for sure, aside from the "Jewish Lobby" (for whom the book is a God-send of a fundraising tool), the two groups most happy about the publication of "The Israel Lobby" are the oil and arms lobbies, unquestionably the most powerful, and invisible, lobbies in the United States.
Re: Reminder of Mearsheimer's background
Re: Reminder of Mearsheimer's background
I think you are correct. However, I rather doubt that the Chomsky crowd is representative of more than a small fraction of Jewish opinion. I think, rather, that most Jews just thought the Iraq war would be a disaster and/or thought that war, other than in a fairly clear case of self-defense, is usually wrong such that the Iraq war is wrong.
what waltz and mearsheimer said
"The article appeared in March 2006 in the London Review of Books to intense controversy.
The excitement over the article stemmed both from what Mearsheimer and Walt wrote about the Israel lobby and from what they were perceived to be saying about an always-touchy issue: the power and influence of Jews. They indicted the lobby for manipulating America’s Middle East policy in ways that jeopardize the international standing and physical safety of the United States. In particular, they pressed hard on the most sensitive issue in American politics, the war in Iraq. Just as most Americans were coming to view the war as a terrible mistake, Mearsheimer and Walt declared, “There is little doubt that Israel and the [l]obby were key factors in the decision to go to war. It’s a decision the [United States] would have been far less likely to take without their efforts."
We now know that this reconstruction of events is UNTRUE, that the Israeli govt did NOT press for Iraq and opposed the invasion but in the end went along as a dutiful ally. Even Walt and Mearsheimer admit they made a gross mistake here. (The only person around here still holding to this original position of M & W, and not even including M & W themselves, is that person impermeable to facts--Omar.)
and a former Secy of State's opinion of M & W
"Anyone who thinks that Jewish groups constitute a homogeneous "lobby" ought to spend some time dealing with them. For example, my decision to open a dialogue with Yasser Arafat after he met certain conditions evoked a wide spectrum of responses from the government of Israel, its political parties, and American Jewish groups who weighed in on one side or the other. Other examples in which the United States rejected Israel's view of an issue, or the view of the American Jewish community, include the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia and President Reagan's decision to go to the cemetery at Bitburg, Germany.
The United States supports Israel not because of favoritism based on political pressure or influence but because the American people, and their leaders, say that supporting Israel is politically sound and morally just."
Re: Reminder of Mearsheimer's background
You are correct. The Iraq War is not a "Jewish conspiracy" for the simple reason that Jews (like the US Government and Catholics and just about every other group you care to name) are too diverse and, consequentially, too busy fighting among themselves to get together in "vast conspiracies" like the tin foil brigade would have everyone believe.
For example, many people say "Bolshevism was a Jewish conspiracy," which is preposterous when one realises that there were Jews like Ernst Kantorowicz, Anton Graf Arco-Valley and part-Jews like Hans von Dohnanyi fighting in the ranks of the German Freikorps against the Communists.
Near as I can tell, Jewish views on the Iraq war falls into three categories:
1) those who support it (Wolfowitz, Ledeen, Perle, Krauthammer et al),
2) those who oppose it (not only Naomi Klein, and Finkelstein&Chomsky, but also the Satmar Hassidim and Neuteri Kartei, as well as producer Seymore Butts, and most Hollywood types (eg Michael Douglas, Sarah Jessica Parker)
3) those who have not said much about it either way, such as comedian Andrew Dice Clay.
It is therefore unfair, not to mention historically inaccurate to say that "the Jews started the Iraq War," when Jewish opinion about this war is anything but uniform.
Re: Calling a spade a spade
2. I've also now provided examples of individual senators making criticisms of Israeli policy directly (Feinstein; Leahy). These facts will no doubt have no impact upon "Peter". His ideology is impervious to them. His response to uncomfortable and disconfirming facts is the same as Omar's--personal abuse heaped on those who provide him with uncomfortable
information.
3. Now "Peter" has even been spanked in public for such conduct by the HNN Webmaster. But wait...Jonathan Dresner. Doesn't that guy have a JEWISH-sounding name? Put on your tin-foil hats, Peter and Omar!
4. Speaking of which: The claim of "Peter" now is that he didn't mean to call anyone HERE "Un-American" yesterday, I've seen sudden retreat and desperate cya before but this is a particularly good example. People may remember the immortal contrast "Peter" drew last summer between "real Americans" and "Likudnick rapers of history" (i.e., me, Friedman, Green, Simon). I doubt that he's changed his mind. But, caught in public and not for the first time, he's backing off from his indefensible racism.
Re: An irrelevancy is an irrelevancy even if it is the 10th or
You don't respond to the second posting I posted on this subject, requoted below, that shows that another few minutes of surfing the net demonstrates that your accusation that no Congresspeople make public criticisms of the actions of Israel is simply and directly (SUPRISE!) factually wrong:
Another few minutes on the net produced, as I said, the following:
" Sep 09, 2006
WASHINGTON — Reflecting growing discontent in Washington with Israel’s use of American-made cluster bombs in heavily populated areas of Lebanon, two leading Democratic senators this week introduced legislation that would require recipients of such munitions not to use them in or near civilian centers.
Senators Dianne Feinstein of California and Patrick Leahy of Vermont this week introduced the Cluster Munitions Amendment."
Better put on your tinfoil hat, Peter--maybe this is simply disinformation put out by those sly Jews.
Re: An irrelevancy is an irrelevancy even if it is the 10th or
I think that while, as you say, we were referring to people in Congress, the good Professor Eckstein is correct, given his explanation of the context. And, his other post is directly on point.
But, as I noted, there are two men running to be President of of wonderful country who are decidedly not close friends of Israel. And, a third is often critical although he is, clearly, not unfriendly to Israel.
In any event, the point is that Israel is criticized. While the volume is not all that loud, as it is, by contrast, in Europe, it exists. Consider that in Europe, governments have the need to appease Arab oil interests and the Antisemitic element that is, by American standards, outspoken and large. In the US, Israel is treated more respectfully, as a vital friend should be.
Re: Reminder of Mearsheimer's background
I recall the opinion polls at the time. The vast majority of Jews opposed the Iraq War, from the beginning. In fact, they were likely the most opposed group.
Re: A contradiction is a contradiction, nothing "nasty"
. Sep 09, 2006
WASHINGTON — Reflecting growing discontent in Washington with Israel’s use of American-made cluster bombs in heavily populated areas of Lebanon, two leading Democratic senators this week introduced legislation that would require recipients of such munitions not to use them in or near civilian centers.
Senators Dianne Feinstein of California and Patrick Leahy of Vermont this week introduced the Cluster Munitions Amendment.
Better put on your tinfoil hat, Peter--maybe this is simply disinformation put out by those sly Jews.
An irrelevancy is an irrelevancy even if it is the 10th or 20th
Iowa State conventions are not the US Congress. Introducing general purpose resolutions against worldwide cluster bombs does not equal making public criticisms of one specific foreign government.
Re: A contradiction is a contradiction, nothing "nasty"
"For two decades, Iowa's Democrats have overwhelmingly passed resolutions at their state conventions supporting a more balanced and compassionate US policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."
Re: A contradiction is a contradiction, nothing "nasty"
Yes, I can name names. Start with, on the Republican side, Ron Paul. On the Democratic side, start with Dennis Kucinich. Both want to be president, by the way, so they had a platform for their views. Then there was Congressman Issa. Senator Biden, another candidate for president, was also somewhat critical, as a good friend should be. And, numerous others were mildly critical as well. I can check and give you a whole list but I think I have made my point.
"Plenty" of nameless
Really?
Can you name names?
Or give proof in the form of a reference to when and where the criticism occurred and what statements were actually made?
It would really be nice to know who these needles in the haystack are.
I am not holding my breath. I am also not going to plow through your haystack. I can think of three likely candidates (all happen to have non-mainstream genders and ethnicities). Three out of 535 Congressmen/women and Senators! And those three probably get thousands of hate mail letters, dozens of threats of violence, and scores of editorial broadsides for each critical statement made.
Nice, though, to see you finally decided to obliquely address the question of why Congress treats one foreign country, more than other with kid gloves.
"Plenty" of nameless "people in Congress"
Really?
Can you name names?
Or give proof in the form of a reference to when and where the criticism occurred and what statements were actually made?
It would really be nice to know who these needles in the haystack are.
I am not holding my breath. I am also not going to plow through your haystack. I can think of three likely candidates (all happen to have non-mainstream genders and ethnicities). Three out of 535 Congressmen/women and Senators! And those three probably get thousands of hate mail letters, dozens of threats of violence, and scores of editorial broadsides for each critical statement made.
Nice, though, to see you finally decided to obliquely address the question of why Congress treats one foreign country, more than other with kid gloves.
Re: A contradiction is a contradiction, nothing "nasty"
There was lots of criticism - and along the very lines you now assert. Open up the papers. There was, of course, no resolution by Congress - and, as I see it, there was no reason for such a resolution -, but plenty of people in Congress, while supportive in principle of Israel's behavior, criticized Israel. I believe at least several such persons are running for president.
I might add that some rather harsh, but fair minded, critics of Israel's behavior, like the famed Michael Walzer of Princeton, were supportive in principle of what Israel did. It was, as he wrote, morally justified and in line with what countries should do in such circumstances - all in accordance with just war theory, for which Walzer is famous.
Whether or not that war advanced Israel's strategic interests remains to be seen. If Hezbollah is more restrained in the future, then Israel's position was improved. If not, then not. We shall see. So far, Hezbollah is being pretty restrained.
So far as US interests are concerned, the nearby Arab states (excluding Syria) and the US all tended to support Israel's position against Hezbollah. They all see Iran as a threat and Hezbollah as a rogue army serving Iranian objectives.
In fact, there is an argument, as made by Bernard Lewis, that such array of interests make more peaceful relations among them - and actual peace on Lewis' telling - more likely, since there appears to be a common interest and thus a need, as these countries see it, to counter Iran's influence in the region. So, I do not agree with you although I think that Lewis is too optimistic about what is a short term benefit.
A contradiction is a contradiction, nothing "nasty" ab
Re: PS
Apparently your email address in your HNN account no longer functions, so I have to do this publicly.
Tone it down, especially the personal attacks, or your account and posting privileges will be revoked.
http://hnn.us/articles/1885.html
Jonathan Dresner
HNN Assistant Editor
Calling a spade a spade
Re: No, what you wrote was nasty
Has it occurred to you that we differ about the US interests involved and how best to promote them?
I have also told you repeatedly that I think you have it all backwards. I think that no matter what Israel does, there is no peace to be had with Palestinian Arabs. The time is not ripe and it will not likely be ripe for another hundred years, if ever.
So, I do not think the US should waste time building up expectations about dispute resolutions that have no chance of bearing fruit. And, dwelling on Israel's sins, when the region includes regimes that are, by Israel's standards, truly barbaric - to be kind - is hypocrisy that undermines US interests.
With my premise, dumping on the Israelis is nuts. It confuses US interest for the interests of Arabs in the Middle East. And, Arabs in the Middle East have demonstrably and dramatically different aims than does the US. In the scheme of things, a secure Israel helps the US advance US interests in the region. A weak Israel hurts US interests.
Clarke still in the gutter
I don't think this describes either Friedman or me, nor even E. Simon nor Mr. Greene nor anyone else who posts regularly on this blog. It's an anti-semitic strawman.
Welcome to Omar's cave, Peter Clarke. Don't forget to join him in putting on your tinfoil hat.
the gutter--not for the first time, N.F.!
What he writes here comes from the gut, and it's the same old Peter. Facts? No. Racism? You bet. Sorry I'm not a "real American" by your standards, Peter. My father fought on Iwo Jima
From Iwo Jima to Cyberspace
PS
the BS machine
not the same as seeing it as a vital friend.
Seeing it as a vital friend is not the same as fighting madly to defend any and all actions of it no matter what the interests of America related to the actions may be.
Nonsense
Get used to it Friedman, or clean up your sorry act, or move to the West Bank.
No, Clarke has no sense of decency
What he writes here comes from the gut, and it's the same old Peter. Facts? No. Racism? You bet. Sorry I'm not a "real American" by your standards, Peter. My father fought on Iwo Jima.
Re: Traces of a forgetful pawn
The following sentence from the above post has a broken link: I might add: criticism of Britain is extraordinarily rare.
The correct reference is here, if things post correctly this time.
Tinfoil Hats
2. The Israelis went along with U.S. plans to invade Iraq, which the Israelis initially opposed. They thought the U.S. should reserve its strength for the bigger threat posed by Iran. In going along with Iraq, they were merely being a dutiful ally. That is what even M and W now believe. You say you believe that, too... but then you say..."In any case, I am not all sure that there wasn't some kind of Israeli plot involving an invasion of Iraq"! You ought to try not directly contradicting yourself so quickly. It makes you look silly.
3. I see you do not even attempt to answer my facts presented at 8:17 a.m. Indeed, you never have attempted to answer ANY of my facts on how your alleged "lapdog" Congress ignores Israeli interests.
4. I think you and Omar better pick up your tin-foil hats to protect you from that secret Israeli influence over things.
Re: The gutter
I will say it one more time so that it MIGHT finally penetrate your steel-cased cranium. The problem of this extreme, paranoid, UN-American Lobby and its dupes IS NOT (NOT, N, O, T!) the main driving force of American foreign policy in the Mideast, in my humble opinion and WHATEVER Mssrs M and W say or what you or Eckstein or Simon might lie about their saying, but it IS an unhealthy and shameful reality and it is to the clear benefit of the people of America that M and W are determined to help finally bring it to account.
This is shameless stuff. We are not, on Peter's telling, merely wrong. Rather, we are liars and dupes and those who might lobby for Israel are "UN-American," on Peter's peculiar position, contrary to the vast majority of Americans, who see Israel as a vital friend:
US poll: Israel alone named 'vital friend'
Gallup poll places Israel as only country majority of Americans both view favorably and see as important. Iraq most unfavorable but most important while only 9 percent view Iran as favorable
Peter has really stooped - or is that shtupped himself - into the gutter.
Have you no sense of decency, sir?
Whatever M & W believe deep down, they have publicly admitted facts contradict their position.
Now, I think the more interesting question is what informs your views. According to you, and I quote: "The problem of this extreme, paranoid, UN-American Lobby and its dupes ..."
In other words, on your telling those who support Israel are either "un-American" or "dupes." Such is an amazing comment.
Here is a suggestion, Peter - or is your name really Joseph? -, those who disagree with you are not "un-American" or "dupes." Such people merely disagree with you. As I see the matter, You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir?
More fibs and tangents (don't you ever have lectures to give?&qu
"we have proven on this blog that even W and M no longer believe this to be true [that the invasion of iraq was an israel plot]"
Did they EVER believe THAT?
WHERE have you proved that they no longer believe what they believed before? I saw a lot of assertions, but where is the proof? I am ready to believe that they probably did change their minds (since I think they were incorrect on at least one important detail in at least their Review article, though basically correct most of the time), but not that you have actually proven that they did change views. We need a proper citation. I hope you haven't abandoned the "Academy" for so long as to forget what that means. If it is buried in one of your 30 or so BS filled posts above, kindly extract it and replicate it, or else go googling for it, or shut the H up about "proof."
As for Omar, he and I do not see eye-to-eye on a wide range of issues, but he is generally worth listening to. Some of what I see as his errors or stubborn prejudices are refutable with facts or logic, so I don't agree that one needs to spew distortions and hostile rhetoric across every page he comments on, if that were even justified somehow to begin with.
In any case, I am not all sure that there wasn't some kind of Israeli plot involving an invasion of Iraq. They did bomb it in the early '80s. I suppose their military -despite its recent stupidities in Lebanon, which you were practically ready to commit Hari-Kari rather admit, as I recall last summer- is still on the ball enough to have active scenario-planning and war-games for various sorts of invasions some which probably rise to the advocacy level in Israeli-US communications. I DO think, and have consistently maintained here, that Israel influence was clearly not the decisive factor behind Cheney et al deciding to launch their reckless and disastrous Iraq intervention and hoodwinking, browbeating, and conning most the military, the press, and Congress into going along with this monumental idiocy. That does NOT MEAN that there was no Israel influence, and it sure as all heck does not mean, no matter how much smoke you try to blow, that there was no PREFERENCE IN FAVOR of an invasion on the part of leading Israelis, even non Likud-fanatics. Omar and I can read the REAL PROOF of that in M+W's Review of Books piece.
Re: Can you ever post without lying?
You two know more about what Israel really wants and demands from the USA than the three of them combined!
That is NOT megalomania...that is utter idiocy.
However now that Israel got what it wanted ,the whole thing has been bogged down at a tremendous political,financial and human cost ( solely to the USA of course) and the majority of America is against it ...the prudent thing to do is DISASSOCIATE oneself from it.
Understandable!
Re: Can you ever post without lying?
by Peter K. Clarke on September 9, 2007 at 1:45 PM. Peter, in that posting you wrote about: "The inability of the Congress to ever find fault with any Israeli policy."
Peter--But in fact by formally approving the selling of AWACS to Saudi Arabia despite official protests from the israeli govt, by formally approving the selling F-15E's to Saudi Arabia against fierce Israeli objections, by approving the selling of $34 BILLION worth of arms to Israeli's enemies in jsut seven years despite official protests of the Israeli govt, by remaining silent when Presidents Reagan, Bush and Bush II have all criticized specific Israeli policies and actions--in all these ways Congress has demonstrated "THE ABILITY to find fault with Israeli policy."
Now, actual formal condemnations of the policies of allies in a direct way in a NARROW sense are extraordinarily rare in Congress. The Congress has never found fault with BRITISH policies, though there have been several controversial ones (such as the Falklands War). Congress never even formally condemned either FRANCE or GERMANY over their ferocious and direct opposition to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and their direct attempt to block the U.S. in the U.N., and this despite massive popular antagonism to France and Iraq among the American public over this behavior (a popular antagonism which doesn't exist against Israel in the U.S.). So if this is your NARROW point, it is meaningless.
But Congress approving the GOING AGAINST and tjhe DISREGARDING OF OFFICIAL PROTESTS of ALLIES, and hence indirectly finding fault with the policies of allies? If this is your broader point, then this happens all the time, including to Israel.
2. As for Omar, he still believes that the invasion of iraq was an israel plot (and, more broadly, a Jewish plot). He said it above on this thread. We all know that this isn't true, and we have proven on this blog that even W and M no longer believe this to be true, and have said it isn't true. But Omar's habitual response to specific facts that go against his violently-distorted worldview is to personally attack the purveyor of those facts, i.e., Omar's habitual response to information that makes him uncomfortable is simply vicious personal attack, empty of substance. No need to listen to HIM.
Re: Iraq or not
M & W's argument is that the lobby effectively has a stranglehold over US policy. That is either true or it is not true. Clearly, on the, by far, most important policy decision thus far made by Bush, that proved not to be true.
That factual discrepancy is not a minor problem. It contradicts the theory, as it show that the Israel's friends do not have a stranglehold over US policy. They merely have influence, along with many other groups, the most notable ones being oil interests and Saudi interests (which are not quite identical with oil interests), not to mention the President's Wilsonian notions about spreading democracy - a form of interest in itself.
Perhaps, oil interests wanted the invasion in order to create a situation that would substantially boost oil prices and, as a result, profits. Oil company profits have skyrocketed, after all. That has even helped the Saudis by infusing the Saudi and other oil producing states with cash, reversing, potentially, the dramatic decline in living standards among Arabs in the oil producing states.
Rather than passing things off to M & W backing off a bit from their case, they continue with their full argument as if such facts did not exist. But, again: if the very most important decision was made and then presented to the Israelis - which the evidence shows to be the case -, with the Israelis suggesting that such was not Israel's policy objective, how can M & W's position - the one they still argue - be correct? That is a question Peter that requires an answer.
As for it really being against the interest of the US to be supportive of Israel, that is a pseudo-claim. As Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen writes:
But so, in a way, is Britain. Who needs that soggy isle, scepter'd or not? In a fight, it would be of little consequence. In 2006, Britain spent about $60 billion on its military. The United States spent $529 billion. You could argue, therefore, that Britain is a strategic burden -- and some made precisely that argument in the run-up to World War II.
Now, you go on to call those who point out the obvious, namely, that M & W's case comes to naught if Israel's lobby was not the push for Iraq that led to the invasion, the "herd." What sort of talk is that from a supposedly educated person? I can understand a bigot talking that way. But you?
Re: Can you ever post without lying?
For he has an uncanny, inborn?, propensity to rewrite others' words in a manner that would simplify his task to refute them...still, even then, he always fails .
In a way he, Prof (????) Eckstein, is the typical blinded bigot.
He is immune to anything and everything except his biases that he repeats indefatigably then falls and fails again...until Friedman comes to his rescue ...sometimes it is Simon.
One thing though about the herd they never let him down...they never leave him in the lurch that he dug himself into.
But then ,should they, the herd, think about it they would realize that they are doing him a disservice because he goes on falling and failing again, again and again!
On the other hand Friedman, a once sober and civil antagonist, has equally suffered from his patronage of poor Eckstein; it has virtually degraded him …it has brought him down to his friend’s level in both substance and style.
Re: Traces of a forgetful pawn
"Un-American." You sound like Senator McCarthy in the 1950's. So, it is "un-American" to support Israel? That would come as a surprise to the vast, vast majority of Americans who, in fact, do support Israel. And, it is certainly a fascinating revelation about you and your brand of politics. As was said back in those dark days, "Have you no decency?"
Thank you for your information regarding Northern Ireland and Britain. I was not aware of it.
Subject to a better explanation from you, I see that the US House supported a resolution in about 2006 or 2007 regarding a murder that occurred way back in 1989. Britain is not, at present, facing terror from the IRA, as it was years back. In other words, your example is not much of an example.
I might add: criticism of Britain is extraordinarily rare.
I might add: the most likely reason for such criticism would be strong lobbying pressure in the US by Irish Americans of Catholic background, a huge interest group - tens of millions of such people, quite a number of them passionate, as is their right, about Ireland, in my experience.
Note, by the way, the source of information you provided - totalcatholic.com, which according to the website "Totalcatholic.com and The Catholic Travel Directory is operated by Gabriel Communications Ltd, the UK and Ireland's leading publisher of Catholic newspapers, magazines and directories."
The other source you provided is a blog called Irish Aires News. That website, belonging evidently to an American,is dedicated to "News about the Irish & Irish American culture, music, news, sports." The blogger, one Jay Dooling, provides the following information about his interests:
* Ireland * Irish News * Irish Music * Irish language * Irish culture * Good Friday Agreement * KPFT-FM * Pacifica
In other words, this is news from an American who has interests in the events in another country. In fact, such is likely his main interest, to judge from what he writes. By your strange standards, he is "un-American." By my standards, he is a normal citizen who is pushing his perceived understanding of the general welfare.
There are, of course, lobbies that advance the views of Irish Americans and have tried to influence US policy toward Ireland - not often successful, evidently. By your bizarre calculation, those who lobby for the US to take a particular view about Northern Ireland must be "Un-American" since, obviously, they have the interest of some other country in mind and, to add, anything that upsets the US relationship with Britain is problematic.
Now, I think your view of what is an is not "American" comes from deep-seated prejudices, not clear-headed thinking. It is, on my telling, anti-Constitutional to oppose the right of Americans to advance their notions about what is the general welfare. And, supporting democratic Israel, a country under attack by people who do not seek to settle any disputes - not now and not likely in our life times -, is certainly a cause that attracts a great many Americans.
Now, I gather your view that the "American" position would be to support Arab and oil interests on the theory that such is the American interest. Again, as stated by the writer in The New York Times:
The general tone of hostility to Israel grates on the nerves, however, along with an unignorable impression that hardheaded political realism can be subject to its own peculiar fantasies. Israel is not simply one country among many, for example, just as Britain is not. Americans feel strong ties of history, religion, culture and, yes, sentiment, that the authors recognize, but only in an airy, abstract way.
They also seem to feel that, with Israel and its lobby pushed to the side, the desert will bloom with flowers. A peace deal with Syria would surely follow, with a resultant end to hostile activity by Hezbollah and Hamas. Next would come a Palestinian state, depriving Al Qaeda of its principal recruiting tool. (The authors wave away the idea that Islamic terrorism thrives for other reasons.) Well, yes, Iran does seem to be a problem, but the authors argue that no one should be particularly bothered by an Iran with nuclear weapons. And on and on.
Evidently, you want to share in the fantasy that fails to appreciate that Omar's voice is that of the vast majority and wants no real peace with Israel - even if, as Professor LeVine divines, they do not hate us. And, you share their fantasy that the views of most Americans arise from lobbying efforts, not out of American history and values. I think it is you, not I, who is out of touch.
Re: Traces of a forgetful pawn
Iraq or not
Can you ever post without lying?
I never said any such thing. You tried to pretend that I did, in order to
try to obscure my REAL claim which is
(2) that the US Congress is heavily and very unreasonably intimidated from CRITICIZING THE ACTIONS, STATEMENTS, OR POLICIES of the government of Israel, no matter what they might be.
(1) and (2) are two quite different things.
Traces of a forgetful pawn
That is about the most ludicrous thing on this page yet.
Your fixation on Israel having or not having a "stranglehold over US policy"
is a matter of semantic definition and a policy quesation for which reasonable and informed minds may and will reach, and have reached, varying answers It has not at all been my emphasis on this page, so it is lame of you to constantly try to pretend that that is an important point of contention between us. I have said many times that the Likud Lobby or whatever you might want to call it is only one of many factors influencing US Mideast policy. It is, however, an unhealthy and atypical one, in that 1) it goes against the interest of the people of America and and of Israel, and (2) it receives addictive and ritualistic support by motormouth dupes like yourself who are (a) deadly afraid of ever admitting that the Israel government has ever done anything wrong, (b) are obsessed with defending that government with whatever BS can be readily flung NO MATTER what atrocities or idiocies may have provoked the criticism of the Israel regimes that leads to such tireless kneejerk denuncations in response, and (c) will, at the drop of a hat, rush to vilify any Congress person who ever tries to speak honestly about failings in Israeli official policies or actions.
I will say it one more time so that it MIGHT finally penetrate your steel-cased cranium. The problem of this extreme, paranoid, UN-American Lobby and its dupes IS NOT (NOT, N, O, T!) the main driving force of American foreign policy in the Mideast, in my humble opinion and WHATEVER Mssrs M and W say or what you or Eckstein or Simon might lie about their saying, but it IS an unhealthy and shameful reality and it is to the clear benefit of the people of America that M and W are determined to help finally bring it to account.
Re this latest feeble attempt at a smokescreen:
"I do not remember the US Congress saying all that much about Britain in its dealings with the Catholics of N. Ireland?"
No indeed. And why should you remember? You are notorious for not even being able to remember what you yourself said a post or two ago (Eckstein's recent lapse of this type, is much more typical of you than he).
It took me all of 20 seconds to google
"Congressional Resolution" and "North Ireland" and come up with the following:
http://irishaires.blogspot.com/2007/02/british-troops-colluded-with-mad-dog.html
http://www.totalcatholic.com/universe/index.php?news_id=2176&;start=0&category_id=&parent_id=0&arcyear=&arcmonth=
Public Inquiry Called For Into Finucane Case
Posted on February 04, 2007
The US House of Representatives has called on the British
Government to enact a full independent and public inquiry
into the 1989 murder of Catholic lawyer Pat Finucane.
The House made the appeal after the House Committee on
Foreign Affairs voted through a resolution from Republican
congressman Chris Smith.
"It is imperative that the questions surrounding Mr
Finucane's murder are answered in order to restore full
confidence in the rule of law in the north of Ireland,"
said Mr Smith.
"Any agents of the government who may have colluded in the
murder of a defence attorney must be held accountable."
Mr Finucane's son, Martin added: "The recent US
Congressional resolution has solidified opinion on the need
for a proper inquiry.
"It once again reminds the British Government that the
weight of international opinion stands against their
current dishonest and unethical position.
"The added pressure from the United States on this issue is
to be welcomed and it shows that the British Government are
internationally isolated on this matter."
Mr Finucane was shot dead in front of his wife and children
at his home in Belfast.
But allegations that collusion was involved in the murder
have never been satisfactorily answered.
**********************
Re: The traces of a pathological liar
Peter, I may not have expressed myself well abive but this was exactly my point--Israel was not the driving force for attacking Iraq. Omar, for ideological reasons and out of his sheer hatred and ignorance, still thinks it was the driving force behind attacking Iraq. My point to him was that not even M & W believe this anymore. Neither do you.
Peter, I see you've given up the "lapdog Congress that never does anything Israel doesn't want" line.
Good--because you were totally wrong.
Re: The traces of a pathological liar
Let me set the record straight.
M & W conceded on ON POINT Radio show that Israel was not the driving force for attacking Iraq.
That one fact - as it the Iraq war is the most important strategic act of the US in the Middle East in many, many years - shows that M & W are simply wrong in what they claim, which is that a supposed lobby has a stranglehold over US policy. Were M & W's proposition true, the US would have dealt with Iran 6 years ago, as they advocated.
Which is to say, M & W are promoting a great big lie, likely in order to advance an agenda to help them sell books, most likely in Europe and to academics inclined to be influenced by anything anti-Israel.
One thing you did harp on was that Congress is not critical of Israel, a concern that strikes me as bizarre. I do not remember the US Congress saying all that much about Britain in its dealings with the Catholics of N. Ireland? I do not remember the US Congress saying much of anything against any other allies. Why would one ally choose to badmouth another ally?
And, as Professor Eckstein showed beyond all doubt, Israel's influence, through lobbying, did not extend to preventing Congress from doing all sorts of things designed to help Israel's enemies and about which Israel loudly, but unsuccessfully, objected.
Re: Speaking of "imperviousness to evidence"
Yes, and others have remarked, Mearsheimer and Walt now admit THEY were wrong to say so.
That's the only pointl I was saying to Omar.
Re: Speaking of "imperviousness to evidence"
However what they documented and published, as reposted herein above by Mr. Clark, and below for ease of reference and reconsideration, is another totally different thing.
XXXXXXXXXXXXX
Here is what M+W ACTUALLY DID say, in their London article:
"On 16 August 2002, 11 days before Dick Cheney kicked off the campaign for war with a hardline speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Washington Post reported that ‘Israel is urging US officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.’ By this point, according to Sharon, strategic co-ordination between Israel and the US had reached ‘unprecedented dimensions’, and Israeli intelligence officials had given Washington a variety of alarming reports about Iraq’s WMD programmes. As one retired Israeli general later put it, ‘Israeli intelligence was a full partner to the picture presented by American and British intelligence regarding Iraq’s non-conventional capabilities.’
Israeli leaders were deeply distressed when Bush decided to seek Security Council authorisation for war, and even more worried when Saddam agreed to let UN inspectors back in. ‘The campaign against Saddam Hussein is a must,’ Shimon Peres told reporters in September 2002. ‘Inspections and inspectors are good for decent people, but dishonest people can overcome easily inspections and inspectors.’
At the same time, Ehud Barak wrote a New York Times op-ed warning that ‘the greatest risk now lies in inaction.’ His predecessor as prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, published a similar piece in the Wall Street Journal, entitled: ‘The Case for Toppling Saddam’. ‘Today nothing less than dismantling his regime will do,’ he declared. ‘I believe I speak for the overwhelming majority of Israelis in supporting a pre-emptive strike against Saddam’s regime.’ Or as Ha’aretz reported in February 2003, ‘the military and political leadership yearns for war in Iraq.’
As Netanyahu suggested, however, the desire for war was not confined to Israel’s leaders. Apart from Kuwait, which Saddam invaded in 1990, Israel was the only country in the world where both politicians and public favoured war. As the journalist Gideon Levy observed at the time, ‘Israel is the only country in the West whose leaders support the war unreservedly and where no alternative opinion is voiced.’ In fact, Israelis were so gung-ho that their allies in America told them to damp down their rhetoric, or it would look as if the war would be fought on Israel’s behalf.
Within the US, the main driving force behind the war was a small band of neo-conservatives, many with ties to Likud. But leaders of the Lobby’s major organisations lent their voices to the campaign. ‘As President Bush attempted to sell the . . . war in Iraq,’ the Forward reported, ‘America’s most important Jewish organisations rallied as one to his defence. In statement after statement community leaders stressed the need to rid the world of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction.’ The editorial goes on to say that ‘concern for Israel’s safety rightfully factored into the deliberations of the main Jewish groups.’
Although neo-conservatives and other Lobby leaders were eager to invade Iraq, the broader American Jewish community was not. Just after the war started, Samuel Freedman reported that ‘a compilation of nationwide opinion polls by the Pew Research Center shows that Jews are less supportive of the Iraq war than the population at large, 52 per cent to 62 per cent.’ Clearly, it would be wrong to blame the war in Iraq on ‘Jewish influence’. Rather, it was due in large part to the Lobby’s influence, especially that of the neo-conservatives within it."
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
What we have here is two minor,small fry Zionists, Eckstein and Friedman, who believe and contend that they know more and reflect more accurately the wishes, desires and political outlook of Israel than;
-Shimon Peres
-Ehud Barak
-Benyamin Netanyahu
(All three are ex Prime ministers of Israel).
That , to say the least, is curious.
That Eckstein and Friedman should pretend that they "speak" more accurately for Israeli ambitions and designs than these three ex prime ministers of Israel whose unambiguous declarations leave absolutely no doubt about what they wanted the USA to do is NOT only curious but is equally interesting and revealing.
AS with Samuel Freedman, once the war on Iraq became inevitable and a fait accompli it was in the Zionists and Jews interests to disassociate themselves from this war ...for obvious reasons!
Now with the majority of the American nation against the war it
is imperative , more than ever before , for the Zionist movement to disassociate itself from this failed and hugely expensive, solely to the USA, adventure .
Hence Eckstein and Friedman's pretensions!
What ever reasons led W&M to change their minds, although that is NOT difficult to guess, DOES NOT change what Peres, Barak and Netanyahu, all three pillars of the Israeli ruling establishment, demanded, urged and encouraged the USA to undertake.
.
Re: Speaking of "imperviousness to evidence"
You are taking liberty with what Professor Eckstein stated. You have the words correct but the context incorrect.
Understood in context, Professor Eckstein is correct: Israel did not favor invading Iraq. Israel's concern was Iran. However, Israel supported its ally in public, as a good ally does, and in the hope that Israel's concerns would in due course be addressed.
We can hope that Israel, in private, told Bush that he was out of his f--ing mind. For that, we shall have to wait for the archives to be opened, many, many years from now.
Re: The American/Israeli Partnership!
Only Omar, with his usual imperviousness to evidence, believes this, as we see in the quote I quoted at the end of my posting just above.
Speaking of "imperviousness to evidence"
"...as even Mearsheimer and Walt now concede, the Israeli govt was not in favor of an American invasion of Iraq..." Mr Eckstein pretends
Here is what M+W ACTUALLY DID say, in their London article:
"On 16 August 2002, 11 days before Dick Cheney kicked off the campaign for war with a hardline speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Washington Post reported that ‘Israel is urging US officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.’ By this point, according to Sharon, strategic co-ordination between Israel and the US had reached ‘unprecedented dimensions’, and Israeli intelligence officials had given Washington a variety of alarming reports about Iraq’s WMD programmes. As one retired Israeli general later put it, ‘Israeli intelligence was a full partner to the picture presented by American and British intelligence regarding Iraq’s non-conventional capabilities.’
Israeli leaders were deeply distressed when Bush decided to seek Security Council authorisation for war, and even more worried when Saddam agreed to let UN inspectors back in. ‘The campaign against Saddam Hussein is a must,’ Shimon Peres told reporters in September 2002. ‘Inspections and inspectors are good for decent people, but dishonest people can overcome easily inspections and inspectors.’
At the same time, Ehud Barak wrote a New York Times op-ed warning that ‘the greatest risk now lies in inaction.’ His predecessor as prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, published a similar piece in the Wall Street Journal, entitled: ‘The Case for Toppling Saddam’. ‘Today nothing less than dismantling his regime will do,’ he declared. ‘I believe I speak for the overwhelming majority of Israelis in supporting a pre-emptive strike against Saddam’s regime.’ Or as Ha’aretz reported in February 2003, ‘the military and political leadership yearns for war in Iraq.’
As Netanyahu suggested, however, the desire for war was not confined to Israel’s leaders. Apart from Kuwait, which Saddam invaded in 1990, Israel was the only country in the world where both politicians and public favoured war. As the journalist Gideon Levy observed at the time, ‘Israel is the only country in the West whose leaders support the war unreservedly and where no alternative opinion is voiced.’ In fact, Israelis were so gung-ho that their allies in America told them to damp down their rhetoric, or it would look as if the war would be fought on Israel’s behalf.
Within the US, the main driving force behind the war was a small band of neo-conservatives, many with ties to Likud. But leaders of the Lobby’s major organisations lent their voices to the campaign. ‘As President Bush attempted to sell the . . . war in Iraq,’ the Forward reported, ‘America’s most important Jewish organisations rallied as one to his defence. In statement after statement community leaders stressed the need to rid the world of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction.’ The editorial goes on to say that ‘concern for Israel’s safety rightfully factored into the deliberations of the main Jewish groups.’
Although neo-conservatives and other Lobby leaders were eager to invade Iraq, the broader American Jewish community was not. Just after the war started, Samuel Freedman reported that ‘a compilation of nationwide opinion polls by the Pew Research Center shows that Jews are less supportive of the Iraq war than the population at large, 52 per cent to 62 per cent.’ Clearly, it would be wrong to blame the war in Iraq on ‘Jewish influence’. Rather, it was due in large part to the Lobby’s influence, especially that of the neo-conservatives within it."
As I have said more than once on this page, I think the inference that America attacked Iraq because Israel wanted it to is wrong. The lame and unplanned "cakewalk happened mainly for other reasons. Most particularly because the Chickenhawks thought they could have a quick success like Afghanistan if they were lucky and a undefeatable "war presidency" if they were not lucky, and Democrats in Congress moved as fast as their spineless torsos could to throw down a red carpet for this monumental and utterly predictable fiasco.
Nevertheless Israeli hawks and their US dupes WANTED a big American intervention in Iraq and M+W cite the chapter and verse on that for the world to read, the deluge of lies and obfuscations on this page to the contrary notwithstanding.
Reminder of Mearsheimer's background
In contrast, Krauthammer, Feith, Wolfowitz, Perle, Ledeen et al are notorious draft-dodgers who never served a day in uniform. Krauthammer, in fact, was photographed standing upright and fit for duty at the ultra-left "McGill Daily" student newspaper (for which he wrote) in the late 1960's, at a time when Canadians named Dextraze, Kroisenbacher, Blanchette, Schmidt, and Bastarache were getting killed while serving in the US military in Vietnam (see Fred Gaffen's books "Unknown Warriors" and "Cross-Border Wariors."
When it comes down to it, I will take the word of a prior enlisted West Point trained OFFICER over the word of draft-dodgers, even if the latter have more degrees than a thermometer.
That being said, there is something else that must be said, but which rarely is, in this debate. Although it can be argued that there is an "Israeli lobby," not all Jews are of one mind when it comes to the Middle East in general, or Iraq in particular. We all know where Perle, Wolfowitz, Ledeen et al stand. However, some Jews also oppose the Iraq war, including the movie producer Seymore Butts of "Family Business" fame. Some Jews, like the fundamentalist Luke Ford, have said relatively little in public about Iraq.
Re: N. Irrelevancy Friedman