US, Israel: The Dog and the Tail -- Who's Wagging Who?

by **StarmanSkye** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 2:27 am

Another thoughtful piece by the noted scholar, author and lecturer making the case that the dog and the tail wag each other-- which I tend to agree with. Certainly, it's evident the US's criminal, unwise and reckless (abjectly, tragically stupid is more like it) policy in the Middle East is hardly in the best interests of American citizens -- especially given the US's ignominous history of atrocious meddling, scheming and covert crimes directing coups and helping to make sure their hand-picked dictators assume power -- as with Saddam and Iran's hated Shah, even the Saudi Monarchy and Pakistan's Musharif which the US supports even though their rule is opposed by the majority of their nations. The major problem in all these situations with their disasterous consequences is that US policy doesn't reflect a legitimate democracy, but very narrow economic and military agendas. If American policymakers and legislators wanted, they could exercise enormous influence on Israel by making continued economic aid dependant on participation and cooperation on a whole range of cricial issues -- but then, the Israeli lobby is way too powerful. Israel and the US are like symbiotic parasites feeding off each other while thinking THEY are the top-dog calling the shots. Oh, the arrogance of pride and conceit. Starman ****** Uri Avnery Gush Shalom 22.4.06 Who's the dog? Who's the tail? I DON'T usually tell these stories, because they might give rise to the suspicion that I am paranoid. For example: 27 years ago, I was invited to give a lecture-tour in 30 American universities, including all the most prestigious ones - Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, Berkeley and so on. My host was the Fellowship of Reconciliation, a respected non-Jewish organization, but the lectures themselves were to be held under the auspices of the Jewish Bet-Hillel chaplains. On arrival at the airport in New York I was met by one of the organizers. "There is a slight hitch," he told me, "29 of the Rabbis have cancelled your lecture." In the end, all the lectures did take place, under the auspices of Christian chaplains. When we came to the lone Rabbi who had not cancelled my lecture, he told me the secret: the lectures had been forbidden in a confidential letter from the Anti-Defamation League, the thought-police of the Jewish establishment. The salient phrase has stuck to my mmory: "While it cannot be said that Member of the Knesset Avnery is a traitor, yet..." AND ANOTHER story from real life: a year later I went to Washington DC in order to "sell" the Two-State solution, which at the time was considered an outlandish, not to say crazy, idea. In the course of the visit, the Quakers were so kind as to arrange a press conference for me. When I arrived, I was amazed. The hall was crammed full, practically all the important American media were represented. Many had come straight from a press conference held by Golda Meir, who was also in town. The event was to last an hour, as is usual, but the journalists did not let go. They bombarded me with questions for another two hours. Clearly, what I had to say was quite new to them and they were interested. I was curious how this would be reported in the media. And indeed, the reaction was stunning: not a word appeared in any of the newspapers, on radio or TV. Not one single word. By the way, three years ago I again held a press conference, this time on Capitol Hill in Washington. It was an exact replica of the last time: the crowd of reporters, their obvious interest, the continuation of the conference well beyond the appointed time - and not a single word in the media. I COULD tell some more stories like these, but the point is made. I recount them only in connection with the scandal recently caused by two American professors, Stephen Walt of Harvard and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago. They published a research paper on the influence of the Israel lobby in the United States. [for a pdf file of this paper, go to <a href="http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011">ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Res.../RWP06-011</a>] In 80 pages, 40 of them footnotes and sources, the two show how the pro-Israel lobby exercises unbridled power in the US capital, how it terrorizes the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives, how the White House dances to its tune (if indeed a house can dance), how the important media obey its orders and how the universities, too, live in fear of it. The paper caused a storm. And I don't mean the predictable wild attacks by the "friends of Israel" - which means almost all politicians, journalists and professors. These pelted the authors with all the usual accusations: that they were anti-Semites, that they were resurrecting the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and so forth. There was something paradoxical in these attacks, since they only illustrated the authors' case. But the debate that fascinates me is of a different nature. It broke out between senior intellectuals, from the legendary Noam Chomsky, the guru of the Left throughout the world (including Israel), to progressive websites everywhere. The bone of contention: the conclusion of the paper that the Jewish-Israeli lobby dominates US foreign policy and subjugates it to Israeli interests - in glaring contradiction to the national interest of the US itself. A case in point: the American assault on Iraq. Chomsky and others rose up against this assertion. They do not deny the factual findings of the two professors, but object to their conclusions. In their view, it is not the Israel lobby that directs American policy, but the interests of the ig corporations that dominate the American empire and exploit Israel for their own selfish aims. Simply put: does the dog wag its tail, or does the tail wag its dog? I AM NERVOUS about sticking my head into a debate between such illustrious intellectuals, but I feel obliged to express my view nevertheless. I'll start with the Jew, who went to the Rabbi and complained about his neighbor. "You are right'" the Rabbi declared. Then came the neighbor and denounced the complainant. "You are right'" the Rabbi announced. "But how can that be," exclaimed the Rabbi's wife, "Only one of the two can be right!" "You are right, too," the Rabbi said. I find myself in a similar situation. I think that both sides are right (and hope to be right, myself, too). The findings of the two professors are right to the last detail. Every Senator and Congressman knows that criticizing the Israeli government is political suicide. Two of them, a Senator and a Congressman, tried - and were politically executed. The Jewish lobby was fully mobilized against them and hounded them out of office. This was done openly, to set a public example. If the Israeli government wanted a law tomorrow annulling the Ten Commandments, 95 Senators (at least) would sign the bill forthwith. President Bush, for example, has withdrawn from all the established American positions regarding our conflict. He accepts automatically the positions of our government, be they as they may. Almost all the American media are closed to Palestinians and Israeli peace activists. As to professors - almost all of them know which side of their bread is peanut-buttered. If, in spite of that, somebody dares to open their mouth against the Israeli policy - as happens once every few years - they are smothered under a volley of denunciations: anti-Semite, Holocaust denier, neo-Nazi. By the way, American guests in Israel, who know that at home it is forbidden to mention the influence of the Jewish-Israeli lobby, are dumbfounded to see that here the lobby does not hide its power in Washington but openly boasts of it. The question, therefore, is not whether the two professors are right in their findings. The question is what conclusions can be drawn from them. LET'S TAKE the Iraq affair. Who is the dog? Who the tail? The Israeli government prayed for this attack, which has eliminated the strategic threat posed by Iraq. America was pushed into the war by a group of Neo- Conservatives, almost all of them Jews, who had a huge influence on the White House. In the past, some of them had acted as advisers to Binyamin Netanyahu. On the face of it, a clear case. The pro-Israeli lobby pushed for the war, Israel is its main beneficiary. If the war ends in a disaster for America, Israel will undoubtedly be blamed. Really? What about the American aim of getting their hands on the main oil reserves of the world, in order to dominate the world economy? What about the aim of placing an American garrison in the center of the main oil-producing area, on top of the Iraqi oil, between the oil of Saudi Arabia, Iran and the Caspian Sea? What about the immense influence of the big oil companies on the Bush family? What about the big multinational corporations, whose outstanding representative is Dick Cheney, that hoped to make hundreds of billions from the "reconstruction of Iraq"? The lesson of the Iraq affair is that the American- Israeli connection is strongest when it seems that American interests and Israeli Interests are one (irrespective of whether that is really the case in the long run). The US uses Israel to dominate the Middle East, Israel uses the US to dominate Palestine. But if something exceptional happens, such as the Jonathan Pollard espionage affair or the sale of an Israeli spy plane to China, and a gap opens between the interests of the two sides, America is quite capable of slapping Israel in the face. AMERICAN-ISRAELI relations are indeed unique. It seems that they have no precedent in history. It is as if King Herod had given orders to Augustus Caesar and appointed the members of the Roman senate. I don't think that this phenomenon can be wholly explained by economic interests. Even the most orthodox Marxist must recognize that it also has a spiritual dimension. It is no accident that American (as well as British) fundamentalist Christians invented the Zionist idea well before Theodor Herzl hit upon it. The evangelical lobby is no less important in today's Washington than the Zionist one. According to its ideology, the Jews must take possession of all the Holy Land in order to make the Second Coming of Christ possible (and then - the part they don't shout about - some Jews will become Christians and the rest will be annihilated at Armaggedon, today's Meggido in Northern Israel). At the basis of the phenomenon lies the uncanny similarity between the two national-religious stories, the American myth and the Israeli. In both, pioneers persecuted for their religion reached the shores of the Promised Land. They were forced to defend themselves against the "savage" natives, who were out to destroy them. They redeemed the land, made the desert bloom, created, with God's help, a flourishing, democratic and moral society. Both societies live in a state of denial and unconscious guilt feelings - over there because of the genocide committed against the Native Americans and the horrifying slavery of the blacks, here because of the uprooting of half the Palestinian people and the oppression of the other half. Both here and there, people believe in an eternal war between the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness. ANYHOW, THE American-Israeli symbiosis is unique and far too complex a phenomenon to be described as asimple conspiracy. I am sure that the two professors did not mean to do so. The dog wags the tail and the tail wags the dog. They wag each other. *** GUSH SHALOM p.o.b. 3322 Tel Aviv 61033 The archives of South News can be found at <a href="http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/">southmovement.alphalink.c...southnews/</a>

by **isachar** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 6:29 pm

Starman, brilliant. Thanks for posting. Neo-fascists come in all sizes, shapes and religions. It's the curse of humanity. What's amazing is that their tactics can be continually recycled. It will take a change in consciousness for humanity to escape this scourge. BTW, I find myself saying "right on" after almost every one of your posts. You da' man!

by **slimmouse** » Thu Apr 27, 2006 6:48 am

"Anti semitism" of course being the famed opening line of defence, as witnessed on this board a number of times. Since when were the Khazzars semitic ? <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol"> Expecting a metaphorical visit from the thought police any moment.......

by **Dreams End** » Thu Apr 27, 2006 9:44 am

Well, aside from slimmouse's strange idea that he knows real Jews from "Khazarians" (maybe he has special glasses or something) this article is nuanced and does not shirk the complexities of the situation. And that's what is so often missing from such pieces posted around here. For example: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The lesson of the Iraq affair is that the American- Israeli connection is strongest when it seems that American interests and Israeli Interests are one (irrespective of whether that is really the case in the long run). The US uses Israel to dominate the Middle East, Israel uses the US to dominate Palestine. But if something exceptional happens, such as the Jonathan Pollard espionage affair or the sale of an Israeli spy plane to China, and a gap opens between the interests of the two sides, America is quite capable of slapping Israel in the face. <hr></blockquote> So at least we have that clear. But for a peace activist, as Avnery is, there are some curiosities in this piece. I'm not familiar with the body of his work so maybe he is more detailed elsewhere...but this: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> The Israeli government prayed for this attack, which has eliminated the strategic threat posed by Iraq. America was pushed into the war by a group of Neo- Conservatives, almost all of them Jews, who had a huge influence on the White House. In the past, some of them had acted as advisers to Binyamin Netanyahu.<hr></blockquote> I found this curious on many levels. First off, it suggests that Iraq really was a military threat...to Israel at least, if not the U.S. I've always rejected this idea as one of the lies that were used to push us into this war. But if he really WAS a threat...hey, maybe it was the right thing to do (or at least that logic suggests so). Secondly, and I find this so often to be the case, what about the FIRST Gulf War? Anyone remember THAT one? Where were the neocons then? Where was PNAC then? You can still try to make the case that it was all for Israel, but you can't pin the tail on the neo-con. I simply am fascinated that all this "neo-cons made us do it" analysis ignores the first Gulf War (not to mention many others), which if I recall, killed a LOT more people (in terms of the initial air assault...this war is still killing people now, of course) and destroyed the entire Iraqi infrastructure. Unlike the more recent war, civilian areas were explicity targeted and the bombings gleefully shown by giggling Generals on CNN. That war DID happen, right? And we all agree it was just as evil, if not more so? Then: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> What about the American aim of getting their hands on the main oil reserves of the world, in order to dominate the world economy? What about the aim of placing an American garrison in the center of the main oil-producing area, on top of the Iraqi oil, between the oil of Saudi Arabia, Iran and the Caspian Sea? What about the immense influence of the big oil companies on the Bush family? What about the big multinational corporations, whose outstanding representative is Dick Cheney, that hoped to make hundreds of billions from the "reconstruction of Iraq"? <hr></blockquote> Thank you, Uri. It's natural that as an Israeli of conscience, you would focus on the complicity of your own government. But all of the above has been driving US foreign policy since before Israel or even Zionism existed, though surely it worsened since WW2. But it is precisely Avnery's mention of the above that shows that he is at least aware of these larger factors. yes, even larger than Israel. So we have this subtle argument he's making about the complex interplay between these two countries, but then he comes back with <blockquote>Quote:<hr> AMERICAN-ISRAELI relations are indeed unique. It seems that they have no precedent in history. It is as if King Herod had given orders to Augustus Caesar and appointed the members of the Roman senate.<hr></blockquote> This seems to undercut his entire thesis, which was about symbiosis and tails and dogs wagging each other. Even while he understands that when things get even worse "Israel will be blamed." Well, I guess you already blamed them, so no need for anyone else to bother. But anyway, that is exactly MY concern. If Israel is blamed, then all of the other factors that lead to this war, and the many that came before and the many that will follow, will not be addressed at all. And even though Avnery addresses them, this last paragraph suggests that they are not at all the deciding factor. I understand there are people that have this position, but it contradicts his OWN opinion, so I found it odd. As for the "Christian Zionists" adding a "spiritual dimension", this is also complex, but, again, at least this sees that it is not purely a matter of "Herod" dictating to "Caesar." I don't know about Israel, but here in the U.S. it is quite evident that much of the religious right is being manipulated to support various policies. I live in the South, so I know that the evangelicals are a force, but I also see every day how ruthless politicians manipulate this sector into believing all kinds of bizarre things as being "Christian", such as the death penalty or lowering corporate taxes or bombing other countries. To suggest the genesis, if you'll pardon the pun, of all this is the actual religion itself, is to ignore the Tom DeLays and others who simply utilize the cloak of religion as a cynical tool of statecraft . To me, it's no different when Pat Robertson says we must support Israel at all costs as when he calls for the assassination of Hugo Chavez. He's a tool. And it would seem an obvious statement of fact that shaping and manipulating religion is a huge component of maintaining state control. It was true in Roman times as well. So that I don't completely become anti-Christian, I have to remind myself of this, and of all the great people and movements that originated WITHIN the Christian church. The reason I wanted to respond to this article, though, is to help folks understand the difference between rightwing wackos like Makow and his take on Israel and stances taken such as this one by Avnery (despite his overstated Herod analogy.) It amounts to this: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> ANYHOW, THE American-Israeli symbiosis is unique and far too complex a phenomenon to be described as a simple conspiracy. <hr></blockquote> And I don't want that point to get lost. As to this: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> I am sure that the two professors did not mean to do so.<hr></blockquote> Maybe not, but they'd have to be brain dead not to see the minefield they were walking into. It is historical fact that blaming a Jewish conspiracy for all the evils of the world was the justification for Hitler's actions. It is also historical fact that such theories still exist and in some quarters even flourish. Since I've only read summaries of their report in the press and not the entire report itself, I don't know if they display the same appreciation for complexity that Avnery does or not. He says that: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The bone of contention (in the paper): the conclusion of the paper that the Jewish-Israeli lobby dominates US foreign policy and subjugates it to Israeli interests - in glaring contradiction to the national interest of the US itself. A case in point: the American assault on Iraq<hr></blockquote>. Again, he's contradicted himself, or, at the very least, pinned down a way in which the paper contradicts his own thesis. That is to say, Avnery himself lists many ways in which the Iraq war benefitted the (VERY narrowly defined) national interest of the US or at least the interests of those who pushed for it. So if that is the conclusion of the paper then they, too, have overstated the case. Or else, Avnery does not agree with their conclusions. I'm not sure which position he's taking. I'm sorry as an Israeli peace activist his voice was silenced. If it makes him feel any better, NO peace activists during ANY wars and NO critics of US hegemony are given airtime here. why, we can go back to the amusing post some time ago in which I'd learned that the Three Stooges, of all people, were investigated by a Senate committee for being anti-Hitler before the US decided to swing that way. Oh yeah, and they were Jewish by the way. The bottom line is that Israeli lobbyists (whose job it is to promote Israeli interests) can brag all they want to. The other forces that Avnery listed are the driving force in US policy. Just as I don't believe the US is "serving South Korean interests" by having troops in that country and continuing to rattle sabers at Pyongyang, even given the immense (and far more bizarre) power that the Moon organization wields in this country, and just as I don't believe that rightwing cubans actually dictate US policy on Castro and just as I don't believe that Somoza was somehow controlling the US when we were training death squads in Central America, I don't believe that the US/Israeli relations are on an equal footing. Because I'm so critical of my own government and because Israel is so often on the same side as the US (and on the wrong side of history) on so many issues, we cannot escape criticizing Israel. In any event, even if we grant that Israel has too much influence on US policy in that region, I am not sure it can explain this: <img src="http://bulgaria.indymedia.org/usermedia/image/7/1_US-military-bases-2001-03.jpg" style="border:0;"/> For a more comprehensive graphic that is too big to post, you can go <a href="http://respectsacredland.org/no-us-bases/draft3.jpg">here.</a>

by **slimmouse** » Thu Apr 27, 2006 10:17 am

"This is not a Jewish plot for global control as some suggest. It is a conspiracy by a fascist mind-set that can infest the consciousness of anyone, no matter what their racial or ethnic background. There are white American, British and European fascists; Arab fascists; black African fascists; Chinese fascists; Argentine fascists, and there are Ashkenazic fascists. If we are going to expose the web that is daily entrapping more and more of our basic freedoms, we must refuse to have that fact edited by those who use the smokescreen of 'racism' to stop the exposure of those involved in the global dictatorship." I think that most here might agree that the fourth Reich is now imposing itself on our lives ( heaven help the Arabs ). Small wonder therefore that Dick Cheney ( Jinsa), Paul Wolfowitz ( Jinsa), Richard Perle ( Jinsa) Douglas Feith ( Jinsa), David Wurmser ( Jinsa) John Bolton ( Jinsa) James Woolsey ( Jinsa) use their minions to cloak the whole debate with the infamous "racism" slur. Gotta hand it to these guys.

by **Lizzy Dearborn** » Thu Apr 27, 2006 6:21 pm

could find out the truth! Does it take touring the ME to see what it's all really about. Take one day being lead around by the crazy Christians the next the crazy Israelis the day after the crazy Palistinieans??????

by **havanagilla** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 6:21 am

DE, I am always amazed at your attempts to "protect" israelis/jews from themselves, or rather "think better" than them what is in their best interests to think...(sorry for lame expression). -- Uri Avnery as others here cannot absolve our leadership in their part of the iraq disaster. Iraq was considered a "strategic threat" by people who see all thriving arabs as "strategic threat" and who also think the security means Israel being surrounded by devastated countries with no army or any capacity to ever have one (zero tolerance to potential, paranoid, threats). In this sense it was a threat. The question whether this war, or the previous one was - 1/ morally jusfitified 2/ a good/proportionate response to this threat 3/ justified in terms of Israeli casualties (there were many, not in battle though)...that's another opera. Your approach to Israeli challenges of our leadership reminds me of the old southern gentleman, protecting the little women from thinking too much. -- You are saying that Avneri might encourage a Nazi like response that lays all the crap on the JEws, but it is the other way around. the reckless position of our gov/jewish uS leadership- has done it, in allowing this absurd situation to happen, and creating the conditions for this accusation. All Avnery is saying that those in power here, are creating a danger of israel and the jews. His critique is NOT creating it, just pointing to it. -- LAstly, nobody will take comfort in the fate of the anti war activism in the USA, for us here. the fact that Anti war people are silenced in the USA is not a comfort to us here. There is MUCH more at stake here than in the USA. the price Israel pays for the iraq adventure is immense, in terms of domestic collapse of all social fabric.

by **Dreams End** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 10:51 am

Hello Hava...I think I'll respond in detail to your post. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>DE, I am always amazed at your attempts to "protect" israelis/jews from themselves, or rather "think better" than them what is in their best interests to think...(sorry for lame expression).<hr></blockquote> You always seem to accuse me of this...and yet I think I'm usually fairly clear...the fundamental objection I have to the above article (though he goes back and forth) and other articles posted here is the idea that Israel CONTROLS the U.S. I really don't know how to be any clearer about it. I rarely, if ever, comment on internal Israeli politics because I don't know much about it. -- <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Uri Avnery as others here cannot absolve our leadership in their part of the iraq disaster. Iraq was considered a "strategic threat" by people who see all thriving arabs as "strategic threat" and who also think the security means Israel being surrounded by devastated countries with no army or any capacity to ever have one (zero tolerance to potential, paranoid, threats). In this sense it was a threat. The question whether this war, or the previous one was - 1/ morally jusfitified 2/ a good/proportionate response to this threat 3/ justified in terms of Israeli casualties (there were many, not in battle though)...that's another opera. Your approach to Israeli challenges of our leadership reminds me of the old southern gentleman, protecting the little women from thinking too much.<hr></blockquote> Maybe we are reading his article differently. It didn't look to me like Avnery was trying to absolve Israeli leadership. Since I don't remember Israel standing up at the UN and demanding that the US cease our warlike ways, then we certainly can't argue that Israel is not involved here. But the whole point of the article was dogs and tails and their mutual waggishness. Again, my argument has to do with this idea that Israel tells the US what to do. As a side note, what's the mainstream opinion looking like these days in Israel in regards to the Iraq war? Do mainstream pundits now criticize the war? Do political leaders argue that it's going well or that it has enhanced Israel's security? Had anyone heard of Iran before the war and been curious to know how Iran might prosper if Iraq was no longer? -- <blockquote>Quote:<hr>You are saying that Avneri might encourage a Nazi like response that lays all the crap on the JEws, but it is the other way around. the reckless position of our gov/jewish uS leadership- has done it, in allowing this absurd situation to happen, and creating the conditions for this accusation. All Avnery is saying that those in power here, are creating a danger of israel and the jews. His critique is NOT creating it, just pointing to it. --<hr></blockquote> Well, no, I wasn't even talking about Avnery. I was talking about the original guys who published that report. Avnery said that they did not mean to suggest a conspiracy theory. My point was simply that any scholar on this issue would be aware of how theories of Jewish control of US politics might be received. That doesn't mean they don't do the research...it means that they might have some mention of the historical context of this debate and maybe even a little pre-emptive discussion of this. Actually, you know what, I'm reading the entire report...and it is horrible. Not because of its theory but because of the way it supports this theory. So I think in a bit I will respond in detail to the report. But here's the sort of thing I mean. There's a part where it says "Hey, the US could live with a nuclear Iran, because Iranian nukes couldn't hit the US...but they could hit Israel. Therefore, US plans to fight Iran's nuke program are at the behest of Israel." That's just silliness. Here's why. What the authors do is basically this: 1. The US says that they are confronting Iran due to Nukes. 2. Iran really has nukes. 3. Since the nukes would only threaten Israel and not the US, they must be confronting Iran on behalf of Israel. I kid you not, that is the logic and I'll try to post in more detail later. Same with terrorism: 1. US says it attacked Iraq to fight terrorism. 2. But US receives terrorism because of its alliance with Israel. 3. Therefore, they must be doing these things on behalf of Israel. Again, black and white are nice colors, but not for alleged scholars. Grey can be a much better shade to work with...and in this case there's a whole LOT of gray...as in, is it possible there are OTHER reasons the US is actually conducting this war on terror? Of course there are. Anyway, more on that later. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>LAstly, nobody will take comfort in the fate of the anti war activism in the USA, for us here. the fact that Anti war people are silenced in the USA is not a comfort to us here. There is MUCH more at stake here than in the USA. the price Israel pays for the iraq adventure is immense, in terms of domestic collapse of all social fabric.<hr></blockquote> Wasn't trying to comfort anyone. Avnery suggested that the lack of response to his reports was somehow Israel specific. And he was talking about in the US. My point was that all peace activists are silenced in the mainstream media here...well, with a few interesting exceptions. That shouldn't comfort ANYONE, but it should make us look beyond the idea that only issues related to Israel are censored here. But double "AMEN" to the last part of that. Israel does pay the price, so I really am curious as to what the ruling powers are thinking in Israel. Pretend you are the rightest of rightwing generals in Israel. What is your rationale for supporting this war? What are the expected benefits and is this "collapse" you mention not an outcome that seems reasonably likely? Is the collapse itself desirable or do you imagine that these generals really thought the Iraq war would make Israel more secure? I'm really curious about that. Is/was there dissension in the ranks as there is here, with generals coming out criticizing the administration (though I'm distrustful of all that, but that's another post). My interest is quite clear. The power structure in the US has been in place for a very long time, and operates as it pleases. The fact that the oil companies are now directly running the country rather than indirectly just makes it all a bit more brazen.. I actually listened to a news story on our public radio network yesterday, and NOT on our comedy cable network, that talked at great length about why the record oil industry profits are simply a coincidence of circumstance. The poor oil companies don't set the prices...they can't help it if there's a bidding war for oil right now. See, there's a lot of concern about what's going on in the Middle East...and that's what is driving up prices (and oil profits) to record levels. And, of course, the oil companies have nothing to do with all that. They can only throw up their hands and pray for peace like the rest of us. These innocent oil companies are all quite happy for us to blame Israeli lobbyists for the mess in the Middle East. And you can too, if you want. But any revolution I want any part of won't focus on tossing out Jewish congressmen. I think, instead, I'll focus on the oil companies to start with. I understand you in Israel have lots of work to do as well. Your leadership, by embracing the Iraq war and (I assume) encouraging the Iran confrontation are doing nothing to make life better in your country. So hit the streets and do what you can to head them off. (And I assume, by the way, that Iran's military threat is quite real. And while I also assume Iran was not about to attack Israel unprovoked, I do fully understand that they are more than capable of doing so if they decide to...so time is short.) But for the last time, Hava, try to understand that I'm not "defending" Israel. I'm concerned about a very large tactical and analytical error being made here by so much of the "opposition" here in the US. I hate to say it, but if Israel ceased to exist tomorrow, very little would change about US foreign policy. Meanwhile, I encourage everyone to read the report itself as I'm doing. I want to discuss that a bit more fully because it's rather bizarre in it's logic. I had assumed, I have to admit, that there was more substance to it as it was being accepted in mainstream circles rather easily. (And David Duke loved it as well, but that's another issue.) Here's a <a href="http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html">condensed version</a> of the report and if you scroll to the bottom you can get a pdf of the entire thing. So let's meet back here in a bit and see what people think.

by **havanagilla** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 2:53 pm

I am relating to you main point as in "if israel ceased to exist nothing would change in US foreign policy". I don't know. we don't know. this is speculation, I mean with regards to the Middle East. Israel and the Jewish lobby provided the missing piece, and did the dirty field/spin work for the oil companies. Is that better ? Your point is a bit deterministic, namely, if it weren't israel, it would be someone else...that's too deterministic for me. Even considering the might and power of the big Empire. it is not God...theoretically, and that's a wild one, if ISrael stood united with the arab countries against US imperialism things MIGHT have turned out differently. While the oil companies may have wanted to take over every bit of oil well in the world, they would still need an excuse, especially in post vietnam atmosphere. -- As for "what is the Israeli position re iraq and now iran"..well, of course there are numerous positions as there are political opinions here. We are looking at those who matter. i suspect that the ISraeli political and security leadership OF THE TIME, did all it can to get into the conflict with Iraq and Iran, with the stupid thought that "they are doing the job for us". These people are not very smart and they are not very honest, as in protecting the interests of the "nation", most of them derive personal gains from the oil/military complexes in the USA. -- the "peace/left" forces that shrank to none existant here (that WAS NOT the case in 1992, for instance), thought this is a fatal mistake. as for military dissent, there was a prepared loophole with one intel officer, Shlomo Brom who was "allowed" to dissent for the future cover up, which they predicted will be necessary when the scam and the "cooked" intel will be exposed (the famous WMD hoax). For a fact, as of 1990, Israeli intel were actively interfering with domestic US politics, in not so kosher ways, to assist the Bush/Neocon bunch, ONLY with a view of the IRaq war. This was a "wall to wall" agreement, perhaps tacit, between the main political parties in Israel. -- the same thing is happening now with Iran. Except that the dissent/left wing is a bit more vociforous, namely, not afraid to write articles and assigne fraud to Mofaz et al who are viewed as warmongers. there are buds of realization that the Iraq war, and the policy in the territories (the annihilation of Arafat and fatah) have a created a united Moslem front, from Iraq, via Iran to Hammas here. Is it a "victory" ? it looks like stupidity and hotheaded policy. Mofaz, Gilad, Sharon, Netanyahu...the architects of this situation (and Barak, Peres as labor backups for them) are being ousted now. But does that mean a lot will change ? not sure. Htere is a momentum in action. -- we don't know (I wonder who YOU do) that Iran is capable of producing nuclear weapons. I can't trust any of those "assessments" now, as we have seen their worth in Iraq. Maybe they do maybe they don't. I think Israel will be hit, soon, somehow by someone, but not fataly. there is too much confusion, too much going on. And, I suspect the US might also be doing some false flag here, against Israel. -- Avneri wasn't complaining about blackout from the MSM here or there, but about the insidious pressure COMING FROM ADL, to block him, and how powerful they are, in doing that. These are supposed to be "our patrons" in the USA, are they ? and he was simply asking, and rightly so, if they were able to block him completely, what else can they be doing ? and how? -- Israel pulls those strings, maybe not as in the Herod/Ceasar metaphore, but Much more than democratically warranted both in our failing democracy and in yours. He is only trying to say that, I think. namely, how come an organization like ADL can pull so many strings and create a totall blackout in the USA against an ISRAELI. (he has a lot of coverage in Israel, so I don't think he was complainig about the MSM here or in general. And that's another story, although avnery is left /peace, and sincerely so, he is not considered radical here, he is the "exception" because he was a warrior in the independence day, he was actually revisionist "right wing" member of the underground against the UK, and he is considered a reliable and "trustworthy" person. So under "conspiracy theory" you might suspect him, as the local chomsky-gate keeper, but i don't think so. He is just "old timer" with a lot of "macho credit" in his account, he is a German Jew (that's elite here), he gained a lot of power from his former independent journal that exposed all the dirt on leaders and he probably still has some rabbits up his sleeves and he did everything "on the table" upfront. So, he is not someone the mililitary would be worried about, only politicians hate his guts (remember he visited Arafat in Beirut ? in the war ? he is now participating in the protests against the Wall, and goes into the fire...using his old age to shield him and deter the soldiers from attacking palestinians etc.). So the ADL blacking him out in the USA ? that's bizarre. -- As for the famous paper on the lobby, I think it starts a debate and that's its main significance. fact is more than one left wing israelis (from the Zionist left) thoght it was timely and important in facilitating a debate IN ISRAEL, how much do we want the lobby, who is wagging the tail, Israel or its overly smothering "lobby". this is a debate we did not have here so far. And it is extremely important here, because as I said many times, the general public here is totally unaware of it. this debate is now having a very serious chain reaction, in the form of numerous criminal investigations of various unholy ties between those "jewish millionnaires" most of them rather dubious (at least the source of their money is) with local politicians. It turns out that some of those multi rich people have bought politicians from both parties (peres and ulmart both recieved kickbacks from daniel abrahams ?? - any info wil be appreciated) who is american. Martin Schlaff from austria bought both Sharon and Liberman, with criminal kickbacks. Bruce Rapoport from Switzerland, the new star Haim Saban etc. etc. The public is waking up to realize it has become a banana republic. All this was totally covered up until now, with the general propaganda of "good rich uncles helping the poor and brave Israel"...he ? it is more like the pedophile uncle who mollests you and throws some candies to make you feel like a whore... -- It is crucial for Israel to open up this can of snakes that happened mostly in the USA, but not only. -- So you have an ugly picture of a semi covert groups of -industrial/oil corps, arms complexes, overly active Jews all over, and some not very smart and very hot headed generals from Israel. none of them is innocent. can this be "switched" and used (as in blaming the Jews..blah blah) maybe so, and I am sure that the Jewish leaders/siraeli politicians should have taken this in consideration or DID take it in consideration and are playing with this, to their benefit as well. Both alternatives are reprehensible IMO.

by **Dreams End** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 4:47 pm

rushed for time...more later. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>we don't know (I wonder who YOU do) that Iran is capable of producing nuclear weapons<hr></blockquote> Don't even have time to reread my post. If it sounded like I believe Iran has nukes that wasn't my belief at all. In fact no mainstream sources believe this. It's all about "in a few years"... etc. The point was that the only choices, according to that paper, are that the US really thinks Iran has nukes and wants to take action to protect itself or that, since the nukes could only hit Israel, it must be in the interest of Israel. What's MISSING from the argument is exactly what you say...that there AREN'T such weapons and that it's all a pretense for other agendas. In fact, as I was thinking about it, I realized that mainstream analysts are in a bind over this paper. You can't argue with the point that many of these actions have not been in the US national interest...because they clearly aren't. However, the mainstream cannot bring itself to question what else might be going on, so the only option left is that these actions must be for Israel. Your take on Avnery sounds right to me in that as far as political analysis, it's all over the map...very inconsistent. He's walking some weird tightrope for sure. Oh...and having been in an organization spied on by the ADL, I'm aware of them. That same organization was infiltrated by the JDL...kooks maybe, but useful kooks to someone. They came out fighting at the very first teach-in sponsored by the L.A. Coalition Against US Intervention in the Middle East back before the first Gulf War. I mean literally fighting. When ADL helps expose the full ramifications of Project Paperclip, for example, I'll know they are serious. For now, I put them in the same mold as the original American Jewish Committee, representing somewhat narrow class interests and trying not to rock the boat. I supposed that they could also just be hypersensitive...I really don't know enough about them. For what it's worth, you charactarize Israel as a "banana republic". That is not at all the image I'm taking issue with. Banana republics don't dictate orders to world powers...they follow them. All for now. But I do repeat...I don't buy the idea that Iran has nukes. I was expressing mainstream sentiment...and even that is somewhat "hedged".

by **havanagilla** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 8:34 pm

ha ha ha, i loved your suggestion for ADL to look into paperclip. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eek.gif ALT=":eek"> The other day, a lady who regularly responds to my blog, and who lives in Berlin (Israeli married to a GERMAN doctor...ehh..that's kind of S&M archetype), wrote to me half jestfully - "imagine you find out that your family doctor in the local public clinic is in fact a nazi who was granted false identity under some paperclippish Israeli project" brrrrr...just the thought of it, and coming from a Frau doctor who actually might know something I don't... --

US, Israel: The Dog and the Tail -- Who's Wagging Who?

US, Israel: The Dog and the Tail -- Who's Wagging Who?

Re: US, Israel: The Dog and the Tail -- Who's Wagging Who?

"Anti -Semitism" being of course.

Re: "Anti -Semitism" being of course.

Simply and plainly put.

I wish we

Re:let the natives figure out their own problems

Re: Re:let the natives figure out their own problems

Re: Re:let the natives figure out their own problems

Re: Re:let the natives figure out their own problems

Re: Re:let the natives figure out their own problems

Who is online