Thank you for your contributions and also for your excellent website.

Deadbeat.

The ‘known anti-Semite’ is on tape speaking about the power of the Israel lobby. Truman was also an anti-Semite. Are you gonna tell me now that he recognized Israel 11 minutes after its founding out of a admiration for Zionist ideals?

You’re talking about the most powerful and consistently brutal government in the history of the world being led astray by a small state whose might comes as a result of aid from that power.

I am not. You are. I never said anything about ‘astray’. My interest is Middle East policy, and which is of course determined by Israel lobby and more recently by its neocon vanguard.

This is where the anti-Semitism comes in, this idea of crafty Jews ruining things, wielding influence far beyond there numbers. It’s nonsense, and it’s anti-Semitism.

The guy who manufacture the false intelligence for the war has actually been described as ‘the dumbest fucking guy on the planet’ (Douglas Feith, in the words of Tommy Franks). ‘Nonsense’ is the word for the fiction that was rammed down congress’s throat. Perhaps the 60% and 35% of total contributions made to the Dems and GOP respectively by US Jews explains why they swallowed it whole without demurral. It would also explain what makes Nancy Pelosi sing Ha Tikvah.

Your argument is silly, so it inevitably relies on an exaggeration — a strawman. But as I said before, the charge is so easily wielded by apologists like yourself that it has been utterly devalued.

They have “served to inhibit and contain those irresponsible and radical elements in certain Arab states, who, were they free to do so, would pose a grave threat indeed to our principle sources of petroleum in the Persian Gulf”

By the ‘irresponsible and radical’ elements I presume he meant Egypt, which since 1971 had been offering peace and looking for accomodation, repeatedly thwarted at the behest of Israelis. And by the way, did you bother checking who Scoop’s advisors were?

There is no fear that Israel will undertake any aggressive policy towards the Arab states when this would explicitly contradict the wishes of the U.S. and Britain.

1953, right? Check the history books for what happened in 1956.

All of the people I mentioned opposed the war before it started, so your analogy doesn’t work.

All of the people you mention share the goal of US control over Middle East energy resources, and are open about this.

Is that why they refused all energy companies from entering Iraq for more than a decade? And perhaps no one has told you, but even the Vichy Iraqi government in Oct 2006 revived a Saddam era contract with China. Some control.

This is ruling class consensus (notice bi-partisan support for the War on Terror, continued funding of War in Iraq, etc.)

Of course there is bipartisan support. AIPAC funds Cheney’s campaigns, as it does Nancy Pelosis.

…because it’s necessary to maintain US economic and military hegemony in the long term.

Yep, US wants to retain both. And that is precisely why the Realist school opposed the war because, as they predicted, it will undermine both US economic and military hegemony.

If the US controls the oil, they can reign in the competition, as well as ensure that oil is traded in dollars.

And look what a wonderful job they’ve done of it?

You’re confusing tactical differences (which exist within the ruling class…they don’t always agree on the way forward) with differences in interests.

What you call ‘tactical differences’ translate into a million Iraqi deaths. But if by ‘interests’ you mean Oil, there are major differences on it. Read Baker Institute’s recommendations issued before the start of the war.

“Also, the phrase ‘US ruling class’ suggests a monolithic boy with shared interests. If so, then perhaps you could help answer the question that Ron has thus far avoided: why did Bush Sr., James Baker, Brent Scowcroft, Brzezinski, Eagleburger et al oppose the war?

If we’re both trying to get to New York City, and I see that road you’ve chosen has gotten you into a nasty traffic jam, so I suggest we get off the highway we’re on and take another route (to get to the same place), does that mean we have different interests? Of course not: it’s in both of our interests to get to New York City, but we disagree on the best way to get there.

All of the people you mention share the goal of US control over Middle East energy resources, and are open about this. This is ruling class consensus (notice bi-partisan support for the War on Terror, continued funding of War in Iraq, etc.), because it’s necessary to maintain US economic and military hegemony in the long term. Oil is the backbone of the US economy and military, as well as that of emerging competitors like China and Russia. If the US controls the oil, they can reign in the competition, as well as ensure that oil is traded in dollars.

You’re confusing tactical differences (which exist within the ruling class…they don’t always agree on the way forward) with differences in interests.

I’m afraid quick recourse to the charge of anti-Semitism will not substitute for a lack of argument. Don’t insult the intelligence of the visitors of this site with this expended charge from the arsenal of the Zionist-apologist. It’s worse than boring, its predictable.

It’s not a “quick recourse,” nor a substitute for an argument. Just because AIPAC and other Zionist hacks throw around false accusations of anti-Semitism does not mean that anti-Semitism does not exist. It does, and it should be called out. I’m just saying that to claim that Israel, a country who owes its livelihood and continued survival to the US, has somehow managed to trick administration after administration (including known anti-Semites like Nixon) to support it against the interests of those administrations is absurd. You’re talking about the most powerful and consistently brutal government in the history of the world being led astray by a small state whose might comes as a result of aid from that power. To suggest that begs the question: “how does Israel manage this?” This is where the anti-Semitism comes in, this idea of crafty Jews ruining things, wielding influence far beyond there numbers. It’s nonsense, and it’s anti-Semitism.

Israel’s role is clear. If you had read the article above, you would have noticed some facts:

“Democratic Sen. Henry (”Scoop”) Jackson, nicknamed the “Senator from Boeing” for his hawkish views, pronounced in May 1973 that “the strength and Western orientation of Israel on the Mediterranean and Iran on the Persian Gulf safeguards U.S. access to oil.” They have “served to inhibit and contain those irresponsible and radical elements in certain Arab states, who, were they free to do so, would pose a grave threat indeed to our principle sources of petroleum in the Persian Gulf”

Or you could read Ha’aretz from 1953:

“The West is none too happy about its relations with states in the Middle East. The feudal regimes there have to make such concessions to the nationalist movements…that they become more and more reluctant to supply Britain and the United States with their natural resources and military bases…Therefore, strengthening Israel helps the Western powers maintain equilibrium and stability in the Middle East. Israel is to become the watchdog. There is no fear that Israel will undertake any aggressive policy towards the Arab states when this would explicitly contradict the wishes of the U.S. and Britain. But if for any reason the Western powers should sometimes prefer to close their eyes, Israel could be relied upon to punish one or several neighboring states whose discourtesy to the West went beyond the bounds of the permissible.”

Also, the phrase ‘US ruling class’ suggests a monolithic boy with shared interests. If so, then perhaps you could help answer the question that Ron has thus far avoided: why did Bush Sr., James Baker, Brent Scowcroft, Brzezinski, Eagleburger et al oppose the war?

Ron’s analysis in this case is on point, and the obsessive focus he points to here does flirt with anti-Semitism. And that is not the same as saying anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism…although a view that sees the Zionists as having some sort of supernatural power is at the very least flirtation with anti-Semitism.

I’m afraid quick recourse to the charge of anti-Semitism will not substitute for a lack of argument. Don’t insult the intelligence of the visitors of this site with this expended charge from the arsenal of the Zionist-apologist. It’s worse than boring, its predictable.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Israel/WatchdogNotMaster_Israel.html

it’s originally published here, but the site is down at the moment of this posting: http://www.isreview.org/issues/52/israellobby.shtml

Ron is right: Zionism is an aspect of the problem, not the root (the root is capitalism, a system that sees the US as the dominant power). I don’t see how he obscures the issue or tries to provide cover for Zionists…he’s clearly anti-Zionist, but that isn’t the same thing as seeing Israel as the main problem (which it isn’t). I’m completely anti-Zionist, I see Israel as a racist apartheid state that should be replaced with one state with equal rights for all (Muslims, Jews, Christians, seculars, etc.), and I recognize Israel’s role as a key ally for the US as it attempts to dominate the Middle East. But, I don’t see Zionism as the root of the problem. However powerful the Israeli lobby is, Israel doesn’t have the economic power to force the US ruling class to act against its interests. Ron’s analysis in this case is on point, and the obsessive focus he points to here does flirt with anti-Semitism. And that is not the same as saying anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism…although a view that sees the Zionists as having some sort of supernatural power is at the very least flirtation with anti-Semitism.

In other words: ‘if both sides are mad at me, I must be doing something right’?. That I’m afraid is one of the silliest logical fallacies, and I didn’t expect to hear it from a dissident voice.

of course united fruit had something to do with the coup, just like israel occupies palestine, but that doesn’t change the fact that US imperialism is the reason for both in different ways

We are still unable to distinguish structure from agency, I see. No one has denied that US is an imperial power, nor has anyone claimed that the Israel lobby is responsible for every imperial adventure. Foreign policy towards each particular region is driven by specific interests, and very often they overlap (such as the overlap between neoconservative interests and the military-industry going back to the time of Scoop Jackson). As Mearsheimer and Walt have pointed out very succinctly, there were many factors that led to the Iraq war, but absent the lobby, the war would not have happened. Absent 9-11 the war would not have happened either. But it took the agency of neocons and the Israel lobby combined with the imperial disposition of the US state to finally get a war.

Boeing didn’t get the contract because of some freaking Zionist conspiracy but because the Israeli company bid a lot lower.

You seem pretty obsessed with ‘conspiracies’. No one else seems to have spoken about any. But you are right, they got the deal because they simply bid lower. So I presume you are conceding that the ‘underlying machinery of Capitalism’ isn’t all that capable of protecting its fundamental interests. After all, Boeing is one of the biggest giants of the Military-Industrial Complex.

Except, there is reason to believe otherwise. Recall how during the Clinton years when Airbus was about to snatch a lucrative deal with Saudi Arabia away from Boeing, the company actually got the CIA to spy for it, and uncover some bribery scandals, which it eventually used to get the deal scrapped in its favor. One wonders why they’d let go with such ease this time?

Too bad you all are wasting your time looking at the shadows in the cave instead of the thing casting the shadow.

Given your obsession with ‘conspiracies’, I am assuming your preference for nebulous explanations like ‘captialism’, ‘imperialism’ has to do with the fact that it relieves you from any meaningful action. After all, you can’t really fight grand ideas. On the other hand if you were serious about doing some thing, you’d be looking at the provenance, lets say, of all the recent legislation on Iran and Palestine (all tabled by AIPAC’s reps in congress), or the Home Grown Terror Act (ditto). The Israel lobby seem to make no bones about its role (as a matter of fact it brags about it most of the time); why are you so keen to play ostrich?

Now finally, let us assume that Israel is indeed a secondary interest for the United States. In that case, perhaps you could explain why it is that in the US media and congress, you can discuss pretty much any issue — some presumably of primary interest for the empire — yet there is only a single issue on which there is never a debate (recall that the homegrown terror act had the support even of such ‘liberals’ as barbara lee, barbara boxer et al)?

For you go cheer on Mr. Jacobs rejoinder who then proceed to smear me as a “neo-nazi” exposes an immaturity of political discipline and adherence to principles on your part. You don’t seem to understand the importance of this dialog otherwise you would not dismiss this as a “righteous” pissing match. Such a analogy reflect an immaturity in your own political development. And honestly that is evident by your incoherent articles submission on DV.

This is a SERIOUS engagement with Mr. Jacobs and is no touchy-feely “agree-to-disagree” discussion. This is a serious dialog that exposes ones adherence to principles and explores the question of justice.

You yourself desire to build a coalition to acquire power in California. First, without clarity people will not understand your stance. Without understanding people will not organize. Without organization the status quo remains. That’s the first problem. The second and most important issue is adherence to principles. I have NO tolerance for racism. I challenge Mr. Jacobs (and other “leftists”) veracity when they try obscure Zionism (racism) as “pressure group politics”; obscure the war in Iraq as “War for Oil”; sidetrack its influence as “U.S. imperialism” or “capitalism” by diminishing racism as a key factor in both imperialism and capitalism. An organization without strong adherence to principles sets itself up for betrayal, foments distrust, and retards solidarity and coalition building. This strong adherence to principles is why the UK Stop the War Coalition rejected HOPOI’s petition.

It is clear that building a coalition with weak-kneed liberals (reactionaries) will lead to the retardation of solidarity. This is evident and obvious from the weakness of the “anti-war” STILLNESS (it’s not a movement) and the “Anybody But Bush” strategy in 2004 where the anti-war “left” supported warmonger John Kerry or the “safe state” strategy in order to preserve their phony “left-wing” credentials.

A good case in point was how Medea Benjamin and Ted Glick to name two help to sabotage the Green Party in 2004.

Just so you’re not exclusively sucked into your own Verbal Vortex.

LOL. With all due respect, Ms. Cendrars, I’d suggest that you read your own articles.

***
Finally below is a link to “The Israel Lobby” produced by DUTCH TV that no “lefty” in the U.S. dare make. I guess Ron Jacobs won’t watch this informative piece since he can smear it as “neo-nazi”.

The Israel Lobby

So for you Ron, “radical” analysis begins with “get over it”. Ron, my critique of your position is empirical. I don’t know you personally and you don’t know me. You have identified yourself in this public forum as a “radical” however your ridicule of the anti-Zionist position is not based on evidence. It is based solely upon ridicule. Your “evidence” is to quote Alan Greenspan who spent his entire career obfuscating all aspects of the political economy who upon his retirement proclaims that the “War” in Iraq is about oil. The article that you wrote here on DV uses Greenspan as “AUTHORITY” in order to ridicule the idea that Zionism influenced the destruction of Iraq by the United States. Your techniques and arguments are NOT anything close to radical analysis and is extremely reactionary. Your commentary is designed to obscure Zionism’s role and its effects on the political economy and culture of the United States.

you are have- set yourself up here as the arbiter of what constitutes leftism when the entire scope of your analysis begins and ends with a hatred of Zionism.

I guess you would have the say the same thing about Dr. Petras and Jeffery Blankfort and other anti-Zionists. However Ron you are WRONG. I have an intolerance of RACISM. Clearly you do not because you wouldn’t spend your time obscuring Zionism unless you have tolerance for it. But no Ron, your advocacy is to obscure a real serious issue that exists in the United States as “imperialism” and “capitalism” and to deflect attention away from Zionism. The problem with your advocacy is that it creates distrust and betrays JUSTICE and retards any possibility of solidarity. It is the very reason why the anti-war movement in the United States has NO traction even while polls show that the majority of U.S citizens are against the war. Mobilization against this war should be a “cakewalk” but the threat of bring attention to Zionism is the key reason why the anti-war movement in the U.S. is extremely weak to virtually non-existent.

A dangerous one that borders on hatred. I can find that “analysis” on any number of neo-nazi websites.

Your smear Ron reveals to me that I’ve struck a nerve and that I am on the right track to call you on your bullshit “radicalism”. Your kind of duplicitous rhetoric Ron is what I would expect to pass for “analysis” on FOX news. The problem is that your subtle bullshit can influence more people than any rhetoric coming from neo-nazis. However it is clear that your tolerance for a racist ideology put you much closer into the neo-nazi camp. You should be very careful Ron, before callously engaging in such despicable smears. This is a public forum Ron and I’d think you’d want “fans” like Ms. Cendrars to remember you as a 1960’s “radical” rather than a 2007 reactionary.

If you had any sense of US history, you would understand that US imperialism existed well before Zionism had any substantial sway in the US.

No Ron, it is you who needs to get up to speed with U.S. history. The similarities of the destruction of Iraq and Lebanon are very familiar to students of American History. Ever hear about the destruction of Tulsa, OK aka “Black Wall Street”. Perhaps not. It was the destruction of a very vibrant capitalist township — only that it was one developed by African Americans. http://www.tulsareparations.org/FinalReport.htm.
The point Ron is that RACISM exists ALONGSIDE capitalism and what your articles are really about is the OBFUSCATION this very fact especially since it would naturally lead to a radical analysis of a brand of racism that happens to be Jewish operating in the United States. That is kind of attention is what you want to avoid at ALL cost even if it means DISRUPTION on the left and especially if it RETARDS solidarity. You sir are sowing the seeds of distrust and betrayal and the fostering of INJUSTICE.

As for your nonsensical claim that because I didn’t write about Cynthia McKinney I can’t write about the Jena 6? Huh? Lots of folks were writing about Cynthia McKinney and I respect her positions on a lot more things than just her antiwar stance. I actually was writing about other topics at the time and didn’t feel the need to chime in on her defeat. Somewhere you also stated that what I failed to understand was that Washington is now run by the Zionists. My take on this is that the Israeli lobby has an unusual amount of influence, but that is only because their interests currently coincide with those of Washington. For that matter, so does the US auto industry and the death penalty advocates. Not to mention the airline industry and the tobacco industry. Are they all controlled by the Zionists, too?

Ron, you misstate and distort the intent of contrasting your LACK OF ANALYSIS regarding Cythina McKinney compared to your analysis of the Jena 6. Somehow you can SEE white racism but Zionism is obscured to you. The purpose of bringing up Cynthia McKinney is to highlight how Zionism affects DOMESTIC politics in addition to foreign policy. In this case it is a well known progressive African American. Therefore Zionism goes WELL BEYOND affecting Arabs in the Middle East to affecting African Americans in the United States. Even James Petras has acknowledged this aspect by highlighting the demographics of the soldiers fighting the proxy war for Zionism. Also Ron, you offer NO evidence that the airline industry, the auto industry, and death penalty advocates and even the oil companies demanded that the United States invade Iraq. However the Zionists were huge advocates for the war in Iraq.

I’m sorry Ron but this engagement and dialog only exposes you for the reactionary that you are.

DEADBEAT!

What I find most ironic about all of these attacks from the “Zionists are the cause of everything” folks is that they are quite similar to the attacks I receive from the pro-Zionist folks when I write something they consider anti-Semitic. I used to umpire youth baseball and always figured that I was getting the calls right when both teams and their fans were quiet or when both teams were giving me hell. That’s how I feel about my political writing–I must be getting the calls right if what i write is pissing off both the Zionists while their opposites feel the need to attack me.

Oh yeh, the Fanonite fails to mention how many contracts Boeing did get. Boeing didn’t get the contract because of some freaking Zionist conspiracy but because the Israeli company bid a lot lower.

I have never said the Zionists are not part of the current problem—I only said they ARE not the ROOT Cause of the problem. The ROOT cause is US imperialism, plain and simple. Too bad you all are wasting your time looking at the shadows in the cave instead of the thing casting the shadow.

So when someone points out your sins of omission, you accuse them of anti-Semitism? Very original.

If you had any sense of US history, you would understand that US imperialism existed well before Zionism had any substantial sway in the US.

Did anyone ever tell you the distinction between structure and agency? US Imperialism also predates United Fruit; does that mean the latter had nothing to do with the coup in Guatemala?

In fact, many of the Islamist movements currently in existence are the creation of US intelligence and the direct result of Washington’s oil deals with Saudi Arabia.

The Zionist-apologist’s favorite subterfuge — the Saudi Arabia diversion. Speaking of Saudi Arabia and deals, can you perhaps explain why the $20 Billion worth of weapons sales to Saudi Arabia were approved only after the US government could overcome Israeli objections with a promise of $30 Billion worth of weapons. The difference being that Saudis would be paying for theirs, while the US taxpayer foots the latter’s bills.

My take on this is that…

You have no take on this. You only recycle received wisdom.

…the Israeli lobby has an unusual amount of influence, but that is only because their interests currently coincide with those of Washington.

And what US interest is served by Israel’s expanding occupation of Palestinian lands exactly?

Not to mention the airline industry and the tobacco industry.

Interesting that you should mention the airline industry. Only last year Boeing lost a major contract with South Korea to an Israeli competitor even after dropping its price by more than 600 million. Try telling the Boeing employees about ‘underlying machinery of Capitalism’.

Are they all controlled by the Zionists, too?

Some of them are. But that is beside the point. Your argument is a non sequitur.

The key to understanding all of this is to know that the whole thing was a sham from the beginning. It was political theater. The goal of this charade was to try to convince some gullible people out there that the Democrats really opposed the war.

But the key thing that was going on was the Democrats were passing a bill that fully funded the war. Everything else was theater, a sham, BS a smokescreen, etc.

Reid and Pelosi promised just after the last election that this Congress would not cut the war funding. Period. They’ve been living up to that promise. The problem they have is that they have to try to live up to this promise in a nation where 75% of all people think the war is wrong and we should get out. And that almost all Democratic voters think the same.

So they need political cover. Thus you see a whole string of actions that would do nothing to end the war, but are there to create the illusion of opposition. You see the non-binding resolutions. You see the votes in the Senate on bills they know will be vetoed. You see things like the phony Dem ‘withdrawal’ plan with loopholes so big you can drive an army of occupation through them. (troops for ‘fighting terrorism’, or ‘training Iraqis’, or ‘force protection’…. that’s what the Pentagon says the troops are doing today!). You see even that phony withdrawal plan being downgraded to a ‘goal’.

What you don’t see is any serious attempt to end the war.

Its all BS folks. The Democrats have approved and supported this war from the beginning. The only mistake I see in Mr. Jacobs otherwise fine piece is that the he seems to give the Dems credit for these little bits of political theater as if they were real.

The world is far too complex to think you understand it by applying simple rules. And anyone who tries to apply such simple rules as we see above with relation to Zionism is going to be very badly wrong most of the time.

On top of that, simply trying to refer to any movement or group of people under a monolithic ‘title’ like Zionism is going to be wrong to start with. Any movement is made of multiple people with different views and agendas. A movement always has factions and different beliefs. I grew up in a place where the racists always talked about blacks and ‘niggers’ as if they were all the same. So I learned very early on that such thinking of monolithic stereotypes is wrong. Sorry, people and the world is more complex than that.