Chomsky on Oil and the Israel Lobby

In the slow evolution of US relations with Israel since 1948, as the latter mutated from a strategic liability to a strategic asset, Israel and its Jewish allies in the United States have always occupied the driver’s seat.

President Truman had shepherded the creation of Israel in 1947 not because the American establishment saw it as a strategic asset; this much is clear. “No one,” writes Cheryl Rubenberg, “not even the Israelis themselves, argues that the United States supported the creation of the Jewish state for reasons of security or national interest.”1 Domestic politics, in an election year, was the primary force behind President Truman’s decision to support the creation of Israel. In addition, the damage to US interests due to the creation of Israel – although massive – was not immediate. This was expected to unfold slowly: and its first blows would be borne by the British who were still the paramount power in the region.

Nevertheless, soon after he had helped to create Israel, President Truman moved decisively to appear to distance the United States from the new state. Instead of committing American troops to protect Israel, when it fought against five Arab armies, he imposed an even-handed arms embargo on both sides in the conflict. Had Israel been dismantled [at birth], President Truman would have urged steps to protect the Jewish colonists in Palestine, but he would have accepted a premature end to the Zionist state as fait accompli. Zionist pressures failed to persuade President Truman to lift the arms embargo. Ironically, military deliveries from Czechoslovakia may have saved the day for Israel.

Once Israel had defeated the armies of Arab proto-states and expelled the Palestinians to emerge as an exclusively Jewish colonial-settler state in 1949, these brute facts would work in its favor. Led by the United States, the Western powers would recognize Israel, aware that they would have to defend this liability. At the same time, the humiliation of defeat had given an impetus to Arab nationalists across the region, who directed their anger against Israel and its Western sponsors.

This placed Israel in a strong position to accelerate its transformation into a strategic asset. In tandem with the Jewish lobby in the United States, Israel sought to maximize the assistance it could receive from the West through policies that stoked Arab nationalism; and as Israel’s military superiority grew this emboldened it to increase its aggressive posture towards the Arabs. Israel had the power to set in motion a vicious circle that would soon create the Arab threat against which it would defend the West. As a result, at various points during the 1950s, France, the United States, and Britain began to regard Israel as a strategic asset.

America’s embrace of Israel did not begin in 1967. Israel’s victory in the June War only accelerated a process that had been underway since its creation – even before its creation. Indeed, the Zionists had decided in 1939 to pursue the United States as their new mother country; they knew that they could use the very large and influential population of American Jews to win official US backing for their goals.

This paid off handsomely in 1948; but thereafter, the United States sought to contain the damage that would flow from the creation of Israel. However, these efforts would be self-defeating; the die had been cast. Israel – not the United States – was in the driver’s seat; and Israel would seek to maximize the negative fallout from its creation. As Israel succeeded in augmenting – within limits – the Arab threat to itself and the United States, the Jewish lobby would regain confidence; it would re-organize to reinforce Israel’s claim that it was now a strategic asset.

We have here another vicious circle – virtuous, for Israel. The Jewish lobby would gain strength as the Arab-cum-Soviet threat to the Middle East grew. When Israel scaled back the Arab threat in 1967, the Jewish lobby would step in to spend the political capital the Jewish state had garnered in the United States. The Israeli capture of Jerusalem in 1967 also energized the Christian Zionists, who, with encouragement from Jewish Zionists, would organize, enter into Republican politics, and soon become a major ally of the Jewish lobby. The sky was now the limit for Israel and the Zionists in the United States. The special relationship would become more special under every new presidency.

Several writers on the American left have pooh-poohed the charge that the Jewish lobby has been a leading force shaping America’s Middle East policy. They argue that the United States has supported Israel because of the convergence of their interests in the region.2 Oil, primarily Saudi Arabian oil, they maintain correctly, is “a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history.”3 Incorrectly, however, they insist that this is what has driven US policy towards the Middle East.

A priori, this is an odd position to maintain, since Britain – up until 1948 – had managed quite well to maintain complete control over Middle Eastern oil, a dominance the United States could not sustain ‘despite’ the ‘strategic support’ of Israel. Successively, they argue, Western control over oil came under threat from Arab nationalism and militant Islamism. Israel has demonstrated its strategic value by holding in check and, later, defeating, the Arab nationalist challenge. Since then, Israel has fought the Islamist challenge to US hegemony over the region.

It may be useful to examine Noam Chomsky’s analysis of this relationship, since he enjoys iconic status amongst both liberal and leftists in the United States. Chomsky frames his analysis of ‘causal factors’ behind the special relationship as essentially a choice between “domestic pressure groups” and “US strategic interests.” He finds two limitations in the argument that the “American Jewish community” is the chief protagonist of the special relationship between Israel and the United States.

First, “it underestimates the scope of the “support for Israel,” and second, it overestimates the role of political pressure groups in decision-making.” Chomsky points out that the Israel lobby is “far broader” than the American Jewish community; it embraces liberal opinion, labor leaders, Christian fundamentalists, conservative hawks, and “fervent cold warriors of all stripes.”4 While this broader definition of the Israel lobby is appropriate, and this is what most users of the term have in mind, Chomsky thinks that the presence of this “far broader” support for Israel diminishes the role that American Jews play in this lobby.

Two hidden assumptions underpin Chomsky’s claim that a broader Israel lobby shifts the locus of lobbying to non-Jewish groups. First, he fails to account for the strong overlap – barring the Christian fundamentalists – between the American Jewish community and the other domestic pressure groups he enumerates. In the United States, this overlap has existed since the early decades of the twentieth century, and increased considerably in the post-War period. It is scarcely to be doubted that Jews hold – and deservedly so – a disproportionate share of the leadership positions in corporations, the labor movement, and those professions that shape public discourse. Starting in the 1980s, the ascendancy of Jewish neoconservatives – together with their think tanks – gave American Jews an equally influential voice in conservative circles. Certainly, the weight of Jewish neoconservative opinion during the early years of President Bush – both inside and outside his administration – has been second to that of none. The substantial Jewish presence in the leadership circles of the other pressure groups undermines Chomsky’s contention that the pro-Israeli group is “far broader” than the American Jewish community.

There is a second problem with Chomsky’s argument. Implicitly, he assumes that the different pro-Israeli groups have existed, acted and evolved independently of each other; alternatively, the impact of the lobbying efforts of these groups is merely additive. This ignores the galvanizing role that Jewish organizations have played in mobilizing Gentile opinion behind the Zionist project. The activism of the American Jews – as individuals and groups – has operated at several levels. Certainly, the leaders of the Zionist movement have directed a large part of their energies to lobbying at the highest levels of official decision-making. At the same time, they have created, and they orchestrate, a layered network of Zionist organizations who have worked very hard to create support for their aims in the broader American civil society.

American Jews have worked through several channels to influence civil society. As growing numbers of American Jews embraced Zionist goals during the 1940s, as their commitment to Zionism deepened, this forced the largest Jewish organizations to embrace Zionist goals. In addition, since their earliest days, the Zionists have created the organizations, allies, networks and ideas that would translate into media, congressional and presidential support for the Zionist project. In addition, since Jewish Americans made up a growing fraction of the activists and leaders in various branches of civil society – the labor, civil rights and feminist movements – it was natural that the major organs of civil society came to embrace Zionist aims. It makes little sense, then, to maintain that the pro-Israeli positions of mainstream American organizations had emerged independently of the activism of the American Jewish community.

Does our contention fail in the case of the Christian Evangelicals because of the absence of Jews in their ranks? In this case, the movement has received the strongest impetus from the in-gathering of Jews that has proceeded in Israel since the late nineteenth century. The dispensationalist stream within Protestant Christians in the United States – who believe that the in-gathering of Jews in Israel will precede the Second Coming – has been energized by every Zionist success on the ground. They have viewed these successes – the launching of Zionism, the Balfour Declaration, the creation of Israel, the capture of Jerusalem, ‘Judea’ and ‘Samaria’ in 1967 – as so many confirmations of their dispensationalist eschatology. The movement expanded with every Zionist victory. At the same time, it would be utterly naïve to rule out direct relations between the Zionists and the leaders of the evangelical movement. The Zionists have rarely shrunk from accepting support even when it has come from groups with unedifying beliefs.

Noam Chomsky raises a second objection against the ability of the Jewish lobby to influence policy on its own steam. “No pressure group,” he maintains, “will dominate access to public opinion or maintain consistent influence over policy-making unless its aims are close to those of elite elements with real power [emphases added].”5 One problem with this argument is easily stated. It pits the Jewish lobby as one “pressure group” – amongst many – arrayed against all the others that hold the real power. This equation of the Jewish lobby with a narrowly defined “pressure group” is misleading. We have argued – a position that is well supported by the evidence – that Jewish protagonists of Zionism have worked through many different channels to influence public opinion, the composition of political classes, and political decisions. They work through the organs that shape public opinion to determine what Americans know about Israel, how they think about Israel, and what they can say about it. This is no little Cuban lobby, Polish lobby or Korean lobby. Once we recognize the scale of financial resources the Jewish lobby commands, the array of political forces it can mobilize, and the tools it commands to direct public opinion on the Middle East, we would shrink from calling it a lobby.

Chomsky quickly proceeds to undermine his own argument about “elite elements with real power.” He explains that the “[elite] elements are not uniform in interests or (in the case of shared interests) in tactical judgments; and on some issues, such as this one [policy towards Israel], they have often been divided.”6 Yet, despite the differences in their interests, their tactics, and their divisions, Chomsky maintains that these “elite elements” have “real power.” Oddly, these “divided” elites – whoever they are – exercise the power of veto over the multi-faceted Jewish lobby with its deep pockets, hierarchical organizations, and influence over key organs of civil society, campaign contributions, popular votes, etc.

Chomsky’s argument shifts again – a second time in the same paragraph – away from “elite elements” to “America’s changing conceptions of its political-strategic interests” in the Middle East.6 This suggests a new theory of the chief determinant of US policy towards Israel. At the heart of these “political-strategic interests” is the oil wealth of the Middle East – and the twin threats to American control over this oil wealth from Arab nationalists and the Soviets. Presumably, Israel protects these “political-strategic interests” by holding the Arabs and the Soviets at bay. Chomsky conveniently forgets that the Arab nationalist threat to US interests in the Middle East was – in large part – the product of Israel’s insertion into the region, its ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, and its aggressive posture towards Arabs since its creation. It is unnecessary to account for the Soviet threat, since they entered the region on the back of Arab nationalist discontent. Indeed, had Israel never been created, it is more than likely that all the states in the Middle East – just like Turkey and Pakistan – would have remained firmly within the Western sphere of influence.

In another attempt to convince his readers that oil has driven US policy towards the Middle East, Chomsky claims that the United States was “committed to win and keep this prize [Saudi oil].” Presumably, the United States could not keep this “prize” without help from Israel.

This argument fails because it ignores history. Starting in 1933, American oil corporations – who later merged to form Aramco – gained exclusive rights to explore, produce and market Saudi oil. Saudi Arabia first acquired a 25 percent ownership stake in Aramco in 1973. Had there emerged an Arab nationalist threat to US control over Saudi oil in the 1950s – in the absence of Israel – the United States could have handled it by establishing one or more military bases in Saudi Arabia or, preferably, in one of the Emirates, since American military presence in Saudi Arabia might inflame Islamic sentiments. Far from helping entrench American control of Saudi oil, Israel, by radicalizing Arab nationalism, gave Saudi Arabia the excuse to first gain a 25 percent stake in Aramco and then nationalize it in 1988.

Chomsky claims that the United States was committed to winning and keeping the “stupendous” oil prize. This claim is not supported by the results that America’s Middle Eastern policy has produced on the ground over the years. If the United States was indeed committed to this goal, it would have pursued a Middle East policy that could be expected to maximize – with the lowest risks of failure – the access of US oil corporations to exploration, production and distribution rights over oil in this region. This is not the case.

In creating, aiding and arming Israel, the United States has followed a policy that could easily have been foreseen to produce, as it did produce, exactly the opposite effects. It gave a boost to Arab nationalism, radicalized it, and led within a few years to the Arab nationalist takeover of three of the four key states in the Arab world. In turn, this contributed to the nationalization of oil wealth even in those Arab countries that remained clients of the United States, not to speak of countries that were taken over by Arab nationalists , who excluded the US oil corporations from this industry altogether. In addition, America’s Middle Eastern policy converted the Middle East into a leading arena of wars. It also became a source of deep tensions between the US and the Soviets, since US partisanship of Israel forced the Arab nationalist regimes to ally themselves with the Soviet Union. In the October War of 1973, the United States provoked the Arab nations – because of its decision to re-supply the Israeli army during the war – to impose a costly oil embargo against the United States. In opposition to the pleadings of its oil corporations, the United States has also prevented them from doing business with three oil-producing nations in the Middle East – Iran, Iraq and Libya.7

If oil had been driving America’s Middle East policy, we should have seen the fingerprints of the oil lobby all over this policy. In recent decades, according to Mearsheimer and Walt, the oil lobby has directed its efforts “almost entirely on their commercial interests rather than on broader aspects of foreign policy.” They focus most of their lobbying efforts on getting the best deals on tax policies, government regulations, drilling rights, etc. Even the AIPAC bears witness to this. In the early 1980s, Morris J. Amitay, former executive director of AIPAC, noted, “We rarely see them [oil corporations] lobbying on foreign policy issues…In a sense, we have the field to ourselves.”8

Why does it matter whether it is oil or the Jewish lobby that determines US policy towards Israel and the Middle East?

The answer to this question has important consequences. It will determine who is in charge, and, therefore, who should be targeted by people who oppose Israel’s war mongering and its destruction of Palestinian society. If US policy is driven by America’s strategic interests – and Israel is a strategic US asset – opposing this policy will not be easy. If Israel keeps the oil flowing, keeps it cheap, and keeps down the Arabs and Islamists – all this for a few billion dollars a year – that is a bargain. In this case, opponents of this policy face an uphill task. Sure, they can document the immoral consequences of this policy – as Noam Chomsky and others do. Such moral arguments, however, will not cut much ice. What are the chances that Americans can be persuaded to sacrifice their “stupendous prize” because it kills a few tens of thousands of Arabs?

On the other hand, if the Jewish lobby drives US policy towards the Middle East, there is some room for optimism. Most importantly, the opponents of this policy have to dethrone the reigning paradigm, which claims that Israel is a strategic asset. In addition, it is necessary to focus attention on each element of the real costs – economic, political and moral – that Israel imposes on the United States. Winning these intellectual arguments will be half the battle won; this will persuade growing numbers of Americans to oppose a policy because it hurts them. Simultaneously, those who seek justice for the Palestinians must organize to oppose the power of the Israel lobby and take actions that force Israel to bear the moral, economic and political consequences of its destructive policies in the Middle East.

  1. “Virtually every professional in the foreign affairs bureaucracy, including the secretaries of state and war (later, defense) and the joint chiefs of staff, opposed the creation of Israel from the standpoint of US national interests (Rubenberg: 1986, 9-10).” []
  2. For criticisms of Chomsky, see James Petras, The Power of Israel in the United States (Atlanta: Clarity Press, 2006): 168-81; and Jeff Blankfort, “Damage control: Noam Chomsky and the Israeli-Palestine conflict.” []
  3. This assessment comes from a 1945 report of the State Department (Chomsky: 1999, 17). []
  4. Noam Chomsky, Fateful Triangle: 13. []
  5. Noam Chomsky, Fateful triangle: 17. []
  6. Noam Chomsky, Fateful Triangle: 17. [] []
  7. Mearsheimer and Walt, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2006): 143. []
  8. Mearsheimer and Walt, The Israel Lobby: 145. []

M. Shahid Alam is professor of economics at Northeastern University. His latest book is Israeli Exceptionalism: The Destabilizing Logic of Zionism (Palgrave Macmillan, November 2009). He may be contacted at: alqalam02760@yahoo.com. Read other articles by M. Shahid, or visit M. Shahid's website.

126 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. bozh said on January 31st, 2009 at 5:29pm #

    lotsof lands needed arab oil and arabs needed their money.
    to establish a state in palestine just to control oil flow (flowing smoothly anyway) wld amount to a needless act.

    as the analyses by shahid shows, no arab land wld have gone even socialist let alone communist if israel wasn’t established.
    once again, just like oil, west also had arab lands.

    soviets supported set up of israel because they thought israel wld be a communist or socialist land and not fascist. turned out that christians were right. they assumed or knew otherwise.

    had israel gone communist, west wld have, i deduce, abandoned it. and the socalled zionists knew or believed strongly that only western arms and money can save it.

    it wasn’t all that difficult to espy this fact. israel was set up only because of help by west. and once christians set up the state, they had, or thought they had, to support it and to expand it as well.

    another cause for setup and maintainance of this criminal state was islam. it is hated by both christians and judaists. of course it is also hated by me and hinduism. hnx

  2. DanE said on January 31st, 2009 at 6:44pm #

    This is a terrific short article. Dr. Shahid Alam deserves resounding accolades for pinpointing certain key problems facing activists seeking justice in the Middle East. Alas, in a cpl spots he uses the term “Israel Lobby” instead of the more descriptive “Zionist Power Configuration” or “pro-Israel Power Apparatus, (or maybe just US Jewish Establishment?) ; this just after correctly noting that the problematic entity is much more than a “lobby”.
    Consider this excerpt: “Once we recognize the scale of financial resources the Jewish lobby commands, the array of political forces it can mobilize, and the tools it commands to direct public opinion on the Middle East, we would shrink from calling it a lobby.”

    Exactly. In fact, by continuing to use the term “lobby” to describe a major component/fraction of currently existing Capitalism, we limit our capacity to perceive the true dimensions & character of the problem. So I would suggest that henceforth we apply the term “lobby” only to those components of the Zionist Power Structure whose primary activity is lobbying the US Gov’t, and adopt another term to describe the whole complex of institutions, financial and business enterprises, media outlets, thinktanks and hands-on Thought Police engaged in generating support for the Zionist State and its policies here in the US and around the world.

    Joel Kovel’s new article, Overcoming Impunity, in the Jnuary – March 2009 The Link – Volume 42, Issue 1
    http://ameu.org/printer.asp?iid=284&aid=605

    makes a number of points directly relevant to this, pointing out that the pro-Palestine movement in the US is confronted by a deeply embedded ideological/psychological set of false assumptions.

    Apologies for my inadequate articulation of the facts, and once more, congratulations to Dr Shahid Alam for his penetrating insights.

  3. Max Shields said on February 1st, 2009 at 8:34am #

    It seems there is a kind of “religious” war going on – is the US imperial empire in the ME because of AIPAC/Zionism or of its reach oil assets?

    This is a faux argument which may appeal to those desiring to hide the hideous impact AIPAC with its confluence of interest in the Zionist state of Israel has had on US policy in the ME, and those who see a Zionist behind every US foreign policy in the ME and even globabally (absurd!).

    In order to understand US foreign policy in the ME you need to look passed the Palestinian/Israel deadlock, to the greater role the US empire plays in the survival of the oligarchies and kingdoms it promotes and bolsters throughout the ME. If we do not understand the US as an imperial empire than all the subtexts take on a life of their own.

    Missing the big picture for historical moments, sketches of this and that only confounds the root cause. If we look beyond the Zionists to what it is that makes US foreign war policy “accessible” by interests that have kept it in endless wars than, and I submit, only then, will we be able to clearly figure out what this is and what is needed.

    If AIPAC were to disappear, do you really think the US would pack its bags and leave the ME and the many bases it has established there and throughout the world? Hardly.

    “Oil interest” is not Exxon, and it’s ilk, per se. Fossil is central to empire. There is no alternative to it that can produce what exists in the American Empire. And it will be oil, not arguments about AIPAC or Zionism, which will remove the world of the number one threat to the planet – the US Empirial Empire and its minions – Israel, the States of Saudi Arabia, the tyrannical rulers of Egypt and Jordan, et al.

  4. bozh said on February 1st, 2009 at 9:09am #

    DanE,
    assuming or even presenting as fact that it is the US foreign policy setters who decide what stance to take and carry out also for israel, it appears then futile to talk about any influence from any group of nonpolicy people on the US foreign policy makers.

    it is another matter that we do not know neither what the policy makers want in ME (or at least don’t say, leaving us suspended) nor who they are.
    so, the two key questions that need elucidation are, Who are the policy makers, and what do they wish for in palestine!

    so on this point i agree with chomsky. he, i understand, does not believe that the ashkenazic urging/begging/commanding; dining and wining senators, et al sets to any degree US policies.
    the words influence and lobbying are overgeneralized to almost meaninglesness. thnx

  5. bozh said on February 1st, 2009 at 9:22am #

    max,
    assuming that in US there may be some 20-100mn rabid USans and ethnically well-mixed but led by anglosaxons who chan’t USA, USA, wld they accept loss of their beloved america to just a few mn newcomers to their land?

    no, they wldn’t. they wld not even insist on proof that they lost US to a people of the cult; a mere suspicion wld sufffice for all hell to break lose.
    thnx

  6. Max Shields said on February 1st, 2009 at 9:46am #

    bozh, interesting point.

    There is a time when we, those of us in the US, must look in the mirror.

    Why is it that the power is in the hands of the plutocrats with its lobby of war? Where is the power in the other direction?

    The recent film “Milk” the simple act of wresting power is available. It is possible on a local level. The levers of power are there to be pulled.

    But wailing about AIPAC and Zionism (and I definitely understand the horror they have strongly influenced and its effect on the Palestinians specifically) does not provide a solution. AIPAC has a degree of power in large part because it is a perfect match for the plutocratic powers that be.

    The greater challenge is building the power to off-set that of war and imperial empire.

    I don’t think Americans are of a single mind regarding any US policies. They know what they’ve been told – there is no Amerikan gene. Like all empires, the US Empire is falling under the stress of its own success. It is collapsing. The economic “crisis” will pass as a crisis but it will not bring back the US economy as we’ve come to know it. People adapt or else… The political system is not equipped to deal with the collapse and is making every effort to save it using the same old spend/debt paradigm that got us here. But this is all so well documented that it hardly bears repeating.

    The focus, I contend is how we deal with this reality. We cannot simply wish it away or through the force of “optimizing” return America to some previous hayday. I’m concerned about the military industrial complex and the 10s of thousands of nuclear warheads we have pointed hither and yon; and the 800 bases. Israel is but a pimple on the ass of a rat when it comes to this situation. And I say that with more than respect for the Palestinians who have been tortured by this pimple in their midst.

  7. Ramsefall said on February 1st, 2009 at 11:37am #

    Both professors throw up rational arguments; a head-to-head debate would be compelling.

    Israeli influence in the US political arena has certainly surpassed the point of being simply a lobby; they have amassed power beyond that which their guardians ever anticipated. Israel is now the tail that wags the dog, this administration will be no exception to that principle.

    Whether the US move to back Israel for the sake of oil or power, either way it maintained the metastasizing Empire’s growth in a strategically imperative region. The US doesn’t go out to make friends, they form alliances for their benefit and interests, period. Be it power or fossil, the upper-hand must be kept.

    Regardless, as Max points out, the Empire is crumbling, and the breaking point is on its way.

    Best to all.

  8. DanE said on February 1st, 2009 at 3:46pm #

    Neither “”Bozh” or Mad Max seem to have digested the main point of the article. Both continue to carry water for the Zionist Entity by trying to minimize the power and significance of US Jewish control of capital and of the US Imperial State Apparatus.

    Of course nothing I say will change either’s mindset so I won’t try.

    But to anyone reading this who is uncertain which sector of the capitalist ruling class is currently in charge of US state policy and the instruments of state power, let me urge you to check out a few sources: Joel Kovel, Jeff Blankfort, Jas Petras, Lenni Brenner, and the website of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors:)

  9. Max Shields said on February 1st, 2009 at 4:20pm #

    DanE, we know you’ll “unwater down” the Zionists and make them the be all end all of the world’s problems.

    Since you’ve scoped this down to Zionism you see nothing beyond that point. If you followed the discussions you’d know that neither bozh nor I have let Zionism off the genocidal rampage “hook”.

    Neitzche had something to say about the inability to distinguish clearly – myopic thinking: When it all blends into one simple ahistorical story.

    But as I said it’ got a touch of religion in it. A kind of my story is right and yours is wrong. It’s all about zionism. Poof there goes 5 thousand years of history in one little myopic distillation – Zionism.

    Get rid of Zionism and the world’s problems are solved!!!

  10. bozh said on February 1st, 2009 at 5:26pm #

    DanE,
    ‘zionism’ or socalled zionism is to me just another special case of land theft.
    in any case, i often avoid the label “zionism” because there is no shard of evidence that these euros with a cult are anything else but slavs, germans, and asians.
    but, damn it, with one of the worst cults imaginable.
    however, once we obtain evidence about what ashkenazim of US or world are telling US foreign policy makers and what these policy makers change to suit the ‘jews’ as a result of ‘jewish’ advice, i’ll go with my previous views.

    according to adbusters, of the fifty top foreign advisers to bush, 25 were ‘jewish’. what does that tell us? well, the advisers or teachers were not lobbyists but advisers.
    but chosen by whom? but, of course, by US ruling class, so the ruling class trusts the ‘jewish’ advisers to look after their interest.
    part of which is also to expand israel.
    and recently 98% of amers voted for the oneparty system. so there is only one party, one senate, one congress, one judiciary, one constitution, one army, one cia, one country and 200mn + ‘stupid’ amers letting a few ashkenazim sales people hijack america?
    but why then is there not two senates and two cias, etc? or have the lobbyists shopped for and bought all politicos, cia,et al ?
    anything is possible! but shows us ducuments and smoking gun evidence. thnx

  11. The Angry Peasant said on February 1st, 2009 at 7:20pm #

    Everyone go on strike. I’m telling you. Ceasing toil for the rich bastards is Step One. If everyone does this, they lose all their precious slave labor; they lose their tax supply, and soon enough, they lose their luxurious lifestyles. Hit ‘em where it hurts. Wake ‘em up with a clear message: Until this fraudulent democracy becomes a real one, we will not participate on any level, especially doing all the work.

  12. The Angry Peasant said on February 1st, 2009 at 7:40pm #

    Sorry, I know I was off the subject there, but I just feel some radical action in answer to all these issues is called for. We all know the best way to nail these zionist fuckers is in the pocket-book. Revolution, I say!

  13. Max Shields said on February 1st, 2009 at 7:49pm #

    bozh,

    “land theft”. Exactly. The reason why the plutocrats stay in power is because their “opposition” (the DanEs of the world) are off fighting windmill called Zionism.

  14. Deadbeat said on February 2nd, 2009 at 12:23am #

    Dr. Alam writes…

    Several writers on the American left have pooh-poohed the charge that the Jewish lobby has been a leading force shaping America’s Middle East policy. They argue that the United States has supported Israel because of the convergence of their interests in the region.2 Oil, primarily Saudi Arabian oil, they maintain correctly, is “a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history.”3 Incorrectly, however, they insist that this is what has driven US policy towards the Middle East.

    Dr. Alam is being extremely diplomatic and quite generous to the American “Left” as the “Left” has been extremely instrumental in deflecting activists away from analyzing the influence of Zionism upon the American political economy and especially her foreign policy. Unfortunately, Chomsky has used the terrible history of the United States to deflect activist from challenging Zionism as a racist ideology.

    Clearly the rush to distort DanE’s position is an example of this kind of deflection and obfuscation of Zionism’s influence upon the U.S. political economy. Max and bozh and been a tag team of deflection for some time on DV. Bozh “land theft” did not occur without the basis of RACISM being used to ethnically cleanse Palestine. Max’s uses a bait and switch to distort DanE’s position. The issue is that oppression is confronted using many different tactic however without solidarity there can be no united front and no strength to fight oppression. Max’s and bozh’s positions are designed to weaken and obstruct tactical solidarity which effectively confuse activist in the Chomskyesque vain. This confusion and obfuscation essentially impedes solidarity with the consequence of allowing Zionism to flourish.

    What is true is that Chomsky has misused “intellectualism” for decades to maintain a confuse state and disagreements among activists about the true nature of power and influence on U.S. foreign policy. No one has done more damage than Noam Chomsky, who is a professed Zionist, to OBFUSCATE the issue. This deliberate obfuscation stunts the ability of activists to construct strategies needed not only to fight Zionism but in turn to fight Capitalism and thus the “plutocracy”.

    The denial of U.S. Zionism is to deny that Zionism has integrated itself with U.S. Capitalism. Therefore fighting Zionism is also a fight AGAINST the plutocracy. Fighting Zionism in the U.S. means tactically allying with oppressed groups that have a history of confronting racism. The Left has been extremely skittish if not outright hostile (as Max and bozh demonstrates with their response to DanE) to confronting Zionism by building solidarity with people of color.

    Why is this important? Because if we examine history the confrontation of racism led to the confrontation of Capitalism. The general public is not at the level of conscientiousness at this time to fight the “plutocracy” but the public IS at a level of conscientiousness to fight RACISM. Therefore one must ask and analyze why the “Left” is so RELUCTANT and even downright RESISTANT to fighting Zionism as a racist ideology?

    Thus articles from Dr. Alam and Dr. Petras are extremely important because this debate MUST be had on the Left and the questions needs to be asked why the Left has spent decades misdirecting activists? Why the Left served up “oil and the foil”? Why the Left is unwilling and reluctant to build solidarity with people of color who welcomes solidarity with anti-Zionist?

    Until the Left can begin to mount a challenge to Zionism there will always be doubts, especially in communities of color, as to the Left’s veracity and usefulness.

    DB

  15. albert said on February 2nd, 2009 at 5:16am #

    But as I said it’ got a touch of religion in it. A kind of my story is right and yours is wrong. It’s all about zionism. Poof there goes 5 thousand years of history in one little myopic distillation – Zionism.

    Get rid of Zionism and the world’s problems are solved!!!

    thus said max shields

  16. Max Shields said on February 2nd, 2009 at 5:34am #

    Albert,

    To clarify (which is such a bitch) those quotes are examples of irony.

    No doubt Zionism is a real problem and that includes the Zionist of so-called Christians and non-Jewish politicos like Hilary Clinton and Joseph Biden.

  17. Max Shields said on February 2nd, 2009 at 5:36am #

    DB you should know better after all this time where I stand.

  18. bozh said on February 2nd, 2009 at 6:31am #

    deadbeat,
    zionism and imperialism are synonimous. zionism and americanism are also synonimous. these terms are overgeneralized. alighting from stratophere on hard rocks, one can see euros have been stealing land in redlands and palestine.

    for this there are actors and factors. in redlands, actors are euros; later joined by asians. in palestine actors are euros; later jopined by afro-asians with a wierd and perilous cult.

    the factors for stealing redlands are racism, greed, hatred, oppression of euro peasantry, cults, adventure, etc.
    the factors for stealing palestine are two cults, racism, hatred, etc.
    it also seems that euros did not want that many ‘jews’ in their respective lands.
    these facts prove that americanism is nearly identical with ‘zionism’.
    so, by fighting americanism one is also fighting against ‘zionism’ or any land theft.
    it can be noted that ‘zionism’ (nonshemitic one) arose s’mwhat later than the ending of americanization; i.e., stealing all the ‘injun’s’ land and killing nearly all of them.
    so, euros with a cult had good teachers. this is the best explanation i cld come up with as to what is going on. thnx

  19. Emma said on February 2nd, 2009 at 7:23am #

    Bozh, I do not get you. Whose side are you taking? You also say that you hate Islam, as do Hindus, Christians and Jews. How can you make such black and white comments? Why do you hate Islam? What have Muslims done to you? I’d be interetsed to know what religious background you are from.

    For your information, most Hindus, Jews and Chrisstians do not hate Islam. All religions are good – it is only a few extremists in each religion who use religion for their fanatical purposes. Obvious examples that come to mind are the fundamenatlist George Bush, the bloody Ehud Olmert etc.

  20. Ramsefall said on February 2nd, 2009 at 8:39am #

    Emma,

    I’m curious to know what inspires you to claim that all religions are good, aside from likely being a religious person who adheres to such fairytale-like gibberish?

    Why do some people have such a need for gurus and questionable texts to guide mankind? Religions create division between people, and considering how much religion has played a part in so many conflicts throughout our history, saying that they are all good is about as logical as saying nationalities are all good…again, they inspire division and separation which create conflict.

    Certainly, the extremists of any religion can take a flying leap away from humanity. I’ve met plenty of good Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc, but they all seem to have some deep need to feel secure through their dogma. The whole personification of a God (typically the old man upstairs with a flowing beard who listens intently to people’s wants and wishes), and the twisted concept that man is made in God’s image, stems from fear and a misunderstanding of our place in the universe, and on this planet.

    All religions create division, and they only exist because people in general don’t know how to think for themselves — as such it’s easier just to let someone else tell you how to live and then leave the hypocrisy at the doors of the sermon.

    Best to you.

  21. bozh said on February 2nd, 2009 at 8:48am #

    emma,
    i think i said that islam is also a cult; thus, i reject much that it teaches. i generally do not generalize by saying i hate christianity, judaism, hinduism, or islam.
    i reject their misteachings. judaism, christianity, and islam teach that women are secondclass to men. i reject that.
    i am henotheistic; i.e., people have the right to believe in own higher power or god.
    but once other people begin to tell you that god wants you to do this or that and you believe them it is no longer a religion to me but a cult.
    god either speaks directly to each of us or s/he, it does not.
    so we don’t need agents like mullahs, priests, et al.
    i follow no cult. i am probably a humanist.thnx

  22. bozh said on February 2nd, 2009 at 9:07am #

    emma,
    i forgot to comment on your statement that most judaists, christians, and hindus don’t hate islam.
    i wld agree with that a priori. nor do i think that most people hate muslims.
    to me, if a muslim, or catholic, or judaist is first of all a human and then whatever, i wld never reject that person.
    and italian or a pole wld never identify oneself as catholic first. thus, a jordanian shld not ever identify self as a muslim only.
    a ‘jew’ identifies self as a “jew” solely because one is a judaist or has connection to it.
    that is wrong. it is dangerous. ashkenazic folks have no connection to judea. thye are asians, slavs, germans but ignore their roots and cling to a cult with mass of misteachings and hatred for us goyim. thnx

  23. Max Shields said on February 2nd, 2009 at 9:13am #

    bozh,
    Well considered. Believing is one thing, and although Emma did not, proselytizing is quite another. All religions make an attempt at the latter – some more vigorously than others.

    I don’t think we need to battle over religions. Universal morality basically encompasses the essence of what Emma and others might find in religion and others agree without the religious attachment.

    Personally, I have no problem with people who believe, and I frankly think there is a spirituality that exceeds the rational; and find comfort in the sense that we do not simply explain what is through a dogma of one sort or another.

    Btw, the religious conflict I alluded to was not about the standard religions, but about the deeply held beliefs – one say Zionism is the bane of all evil in the world, and the other that attempts to ignore the vileness of Zionism and it’s horrific impact on parts of the world.

  24. albert said on February 2nd, 2009 at 10:02am #

    max,you seem to have such a huge problem with jews that i suspect you probably are one.
    some of the worst anti-semites,jew haters bozh, are or have been jewish with deep fundamental hang ups about their upbringing.
    can’t cope with their upbringing so have to violently reject it
    got you max but there is hope for you
    it’s never too late to return
    good luck
    albert

  25. Max Shields said on February 2nd, 2009 at 10:05am #

    One word of attempt at clarity. As if it needs saying, Zionism is just a word. As such it is what is done in the name of Zionism that is the core issue. Zionism in action is no different that imperialism with its inherent racism, conquest, control of natural resources and the wealth accrued from such control, but directly and indirectly.

    That it has blended with the US imperial empire’s mission of endless war attests to the likeness it has to the project.

  26. Suthiano said on February 2nd, 2009 at 10:21am #

    Max,

    Albert doesn’t seek clarity, he seeks obfuscation.

    Albert, just out of curiosity, why do you think that what you said is the case? Perhaps children are taught certain tenets (oppression is wrong, theft is wrong, etc.), and then see own people contradicting them? Certainly hypocrisy has that kind of effect on youth.

    Or perhaps they read that Ashkenaz was son of Gomer, son of Japheth, and thus they realize that identity as Shemitic peoples has been constructed by mad rabbis?

    This is not limited to Judaism. Many youth turn against parents’ attempts to compartmentalize/define them. If only more did so, our world would be a better place. Goodbye to debt, and hello to freedom. Goodbye to an inherited, distant “God” and hello to life, and the experience of God. More one inherits, less one learns.

  27. kalidas said on February 2nd, 2009 at 10:38am #

    Seems like Albert touched that nerve which must never be touched.

  28. Michael Dawson said on February 2nd, 2009 at 10:45am #

    “This is no little Cuban lobby, Polish lobby or Korean lobby. Once we recognize the scale of financial resources the Jewish lobby commands, the array of political forces it can mobilize, and the tools it commands to direct public opinion on the Middle East, we would shrink from calling it a lobby.”

    Well, this is precisely Chomsky’s point. When the interest is deep enough, it transcends single lobbies. Cross out the word “Jewish” above and put in corporate capitalism, and that’s Chomsky’ s point.

    This debate requires some knowledge of sociology and things like Chomsky and Herman’s model of how the media works.

    Either Jews are bossing us around with their “financial resources” (since you ask, what are those, M. Shahid?), or big business is.

    Personally, I find the former contention almost preposterous. If the main crop of the Middle East were onions, Jews would be about as important in our affairs as Serbians or Australians are.

  29. bozh said on February 2nd, 2009 at 1:00pm #

    i cannot hate jews, muslims, or christians; i reject their respective misteachings.
    i see that some people on DV are putting their words in my mouth.
    I reject all cults, but cannot possibly hate children whose parents lie to them in order that they get more out of life than other children whose parents do not cram them with vicious antihuman teachings.

    in a genetic pool we are all equal; all people have inalienable rights such as to abide in ones habitat and to live. cultists such as christians, judaists, muslims are the worst offenders of the basic human right. thnx

  30. Suthiano said on February 2nd, 2009 at 2:24pm #

    It is not coincidence that GOLD is mentioned 12 verses into Genesis.

    Oil is important for some industry, not all. Wood used to be more important. Coal is still important. Whale oil is not. What does this say? Energy is what is required, and as long as one has leverage, one can acquire energy. How does one acquire leverage in Capitalist society? Through control of wealth (which includes gold and land). Zionists are attempting to acquire land, do they already have gold?…?

  31. AaronG said on February 2nd, 2009 at 10:02pm #

    Hey Michael Dawson

    Are you calling Australians unimportant onion-growers??!! I’m an Aussie and I’m proud of our Asian ”sherriff” role for the mother country, America. We’re taking care of their interests down here – we’re even clearing out the Aborigines up north so we can get to the uranium under their feet. Uncle Sam would be so proud of us.

    (I’ll drop the sarcasm now………….I’m not offended by your comments, Michael, I actually agree with them. Unless the world price of onions shot up to $8M per tonne no one would care about all that sand)

  32. Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA, said on February 3rd, 2009 at 6:03am #

    -

    CHOMSKY HAS LONG BEEN RUNNING _A *DISINFORMATION* CAMPAIGN_ ABOUT THE ISRAEL LOBBY IN THE UNITED STATES.

    -

  33. Ramsefall said on February 3rd, 2009 at 6:45am #

    JA,

    according to whom? Can you substantiate this?

    Doesn’t make much sense considering how much he ridicules the atrocities of Israel and their US cohorts.

    Best to you.

  34. Max Shields said on February 3rd, 2009 at 7:02am #

    Suthiano,

    With all due respect, your comments on oil are ludicrous, plain and simple. Fossil is what is critical to the Western world. The major energy producer, bar none, is oil. Oil in particular touches all facets of the American way of “life”. There is no economy without it.

    Making oil a trite energy source, I’ll assume, is simply loose and unthoughtful “talk” or ignorant appraisal.

    You start with the demand for energy and how it allows you to turn on lights (whale oil? wood?), to eat the food you eat, to gaze out at a the complexity, all made possible through fossil – mostly oil, of a city or town. Point to me something that is human-made that is not fossil based? Just one thing. You can’t!

    But oil created America and it’s empire as we know it. This will end, and is in the process of doing so. As it recedes there will be no comparable replacement. Humans will need to return to the planet as co-equals with other living things – certainly we will have our towns and general human ways, but they will by NECESSITY be diminished in terms of the material aspects that we have “enjoyed” for decades, over a century.

    I see a healthy future in this reduction for all of human-kind and living things. It will be good to have empire collapse under the loss of its precious need to amplify its power through the power of fossil.

    Suthiano, if you think oil is so unimportant, try pushing an auto 25 miles (a gallon of itsy bitsy gas does it with ease.)

    The other point regarding oil and the Middle East is that it is as much control over oil as it is obtaining it that the unipower and its geo-strategist are possessed by. Parts of the ME are also positioned strategically for natural gas pipelines – check out the US military bases throughout Eurasia. Become acquainted with what your govenment (assuming you are a US citizen) is doing.

  35. Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA, said on February 3rd, 2009 at 7:53am #

    -

    OPEN EMAIL LETTER TO PROFESSOR ALAM:

    Dear Professor Alam:

    I was enticinglyreading your article, “Chomsky on Oil and the Israel Lobby”, at Dissident Voice, January 31st.

    I hope that you also will note my article, _”THE LEFT AND THE ISRAEL LOBBY”_, origninally published at DissidentVoice (and, thus, also available online), that also deals with this Chomsky (Finkelstein, Bennis, Lerner, Zunes et al) line of _Israel lobby denial_ argument.

    (And while I don’t know anything about him, a Stephen Sniegosky has written an excellent article, available online, “ISRAEL-LOBBY DENIAL”, as represented by Stephen Zunes. And there have been excellent articles, also available online, by ex-CIA analysts, Kathleen & Bill Christison.)

    Chomsky, as a Zionist apologist (or Jewish tribalist, as some anti-Zionist Jews have called him), or “anti-occupation *Zionist*” (as I call him/them), has been the leader in running a smooth disinformation (and censorship) campaign about the Israel lobby (typically using his status and monopoly power over a given microphone, and especially, on the radio, with the help and protection of people like Amy Goodman). Indeed, as Jeffrey Blankfort, a longtime friend of mine might say, Chomsky’s (and other national lecture circuit Jewish “progressive/leftst” icons’) job is to work on the *left*.

    (See online: “Gnome Chomsky — A Great Little Poem”
    http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/133840/index.php .)

    Any number of national “progressive/leftist” icons, most of them Jews, like “academic martyr” Norman Finkelstein (who’s moved to right-of-center *since* his termination from DePaul University, although with one “progressive WASP”, Stephen Zunes) have been engaging in more than a decades-long disinformation campaign about the Israel lobby. *None* of them declare themselves to be anti-Zionist. Indeed, Zunes openly *declares* himself to be a Zionist. The intriguing question about Finkelstein is, why Norman Finkelstein sacrifice his university career only to *then* become a Zionist apologist?

    Chomsky and the rest are smart enough to figure that Israel already directly occupies some 85% of historic Palestine (and then some in Lebanon and Syria), controls about 95% of the resources (even under remaining Palestinian land), and 98% of the economy, so let the Palestinians have their hypersquiggly (in the West Bank) and, at least, *trifurcated* (3-part), bantustan, so-called “Palestinian state”, and call it “fair & square” and a day!: when it comes to the Palestinians, what, after all, in reality, would be “independent Palestinian state” but merely 3 *words*, to be as much ignored as anything else when it comes to Israel vis-a-vis the Palestinian people?

    And then the ethnic cleansing of 1967+annexed Israel would be *COMPLETED* as the Israeli Palestinians (still at least 20% of Israel itself) would be dispossessed and expelled (Israel’s government has already stated this) if there is ever a so-called “Palestinian state”. The Palestinian people, originally from an *the vast majority* to still probably just over *50%* the population of historic Palestine, would be relegated to only about 15% of the remaining land — while Israel keeps all the best land at that.

    So, in fact, CHOMSKY, Finkelstein, Bennis, Lerner, Halper, Avnery, Zunes et al actually WORK — ON THE *LEFT* — TO *PROTECT* ISREAL AS A ZIONIST STATE. And, as such they also work — on the left — to OPPOSE ANY *PRACTICAL* NONVIOLENT RESISTANCE AGAINST ISREAL (economic, academic and athletic boycotts, divestments and sanctions — Chomsky used to openly brag that he opposed this — this time against Israeli apartheid) to at least put Israel’s atrocities in check, and would even deny the very terms of practical analysis of Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians (if you can believe it, like *Zionism*, let alone *apartheid*, *racism*, and, otherwise, certainly not 1-state or *re-unified* Palestine).

    Indeed, it’s sad that there has been so much *CENSORSHIP* ON THE *LEFT* that this subject has been taboo for decades, and that the taboo had to be nationally breach by two *establishment* academics (Mearsheimer & Walt) who’s real and primary goal (like former Cold Warrior Zbigniev Brzezinski) is to improve U.S. imperialist foreign policy in the Mideast; global justice, in general, and justice for the Palestinians, in particular, are incidental issues for them.

    And, it seems, none of them — certainly not Chomksy — ever holds Zionist, Israel lobby, and Israeli Jews *directly* responsible for their share of the oppression, misery, and otherwise death cause by Israel itself in historic Palestine, in particular, Israel’s neighboring states, and the Middle East in general (like championing the war in Iraq, and probably Afghanistan, and a mightily pushing for attack on Iran).

    So, while they would seem to be harsh critics of Israel — SAYING A LOT THAT SOUNDS GOOD, BUT *JUSSST ENOUGH* FACTUAL AND HISTORICAL *LIES* TO MISLEAD LEFTISTS — they all say that it’s only the *WASP’s* in the “monolithic” ruling class (exclusive of any Jews) in the *U.S.* who are *really* responsible: in other words, “The *Devil* made us [Jews] do it!” — or, as I paraphrase them, “Israel is just folllowing orrrders”, and *where* have we heard *that* excuse before? This has always struck me as a racist argument: that Jews can’t be directly responsible for anything immoral — only WASP’s can (“as the puppets of the hapless, ignorant Jews”).

    And how can Chomsky — the self-declared “Anarchist” — support a Zionist/Jewish state *anywhere* — but especially where another people were already living? How can Chomsky — the self-declared “Anarchist” — support “Israel’s right to exist within its 1967 borders”, with a *foreign* ideology, in a *foreign* state (declared only some 60 years ago), with a *foreign* government, in a *foreign* (somebody *elses*) land, Palestine, where a *foreign* people have exclusivist, superior rights? Anarchists are not supposed to believe in classes of any kind or borders, let alone an ideologically “Jewish”/Zionist class/construct and state border vis-a-vis a non-Jewish class (the Palestinians) and state (a so-called “Palestinian ‘state'”) border.

    Finally, only white racism — even among white progressives and in the Western (especially, U.S.) left — could ever support what should be the *BLATANTLY RACIST* ideology of *ZIONISM*, the state of Israel at all, let alone as a Zionist/Jewish state “within its 1967 borders”, that alone a state on *80%* of the land (and now it’s probably 85%, not counting parts of Lebanon and Syria) where another people already inhabited. Only white racism could accept talk about “Jews ties to the land” from *2,000* years ago, being superior to Palestinian ties to the land from only 60-70 years ago, continuously stolen by Israel, *up to the present*!

    Don’t forget (although I know you can’t put everything in one article), the Israel lobby is not only composed of political lobbying organizations, but, Zionist enforcement, disciplinary and intimidation organizations (like the overtly right-wing “CampusWatch”, which primarily engages in academic censorship and intimidation; but even the JCRC’s and the like), and indeed, Zionist *spy* organizations (like the JDL, which supplied information on progressive activists not only for Israel lobby organizations, and undoubtedly to “law enforcement” agencies, but also on then anti-Apartheid activists to the then white South African Apartheid government, and *certainly* to “law enforcement” agencies, and which is documented online from credible sources).

    Finally, the Israel lobby behaves like no other lobby, in that if you oppose gun control, or oppose the abolition of Roe vs. Wade, or oppose nuclear power generation expansion, etc., *none* of those lobbies will will engage in *personal* intimidation, ideological enforcement, systematic spying, direct censorship, economic terrorism, personal smear tactics, and political disciplinary action — especially if you have pubilc status — and pervasive control over the left.

    So, no matter how smooth they _talk a good game_, I have NO USE for anyone (let them go do their own thing) who doesn’t first openly and publicly declare themselves, in this struggle, to be an anti-Zionist, because however good they sound, they’re only working for their own undisclosed/closet racist agenda .

    As an African American friend of mine who traveled throughout Israel once said, “There’s a reason there’s a very tiny “PEACE NOW!” movement in Israel, but not a “JUSTICE NOW!” movement.

    All this sounds hard to believe about ole Chomsky et al? Well, it wouldn’t be the first time in history that white intellectuals (and, especially, colonialists) engaged in lofty lectures about “freedom”, “democracy”, “human rights”, and “the people”, but who turned out to be highly, formally, “educated” RACISTS.

    -

  36. Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA, said on February 3rd, 2009 at 8:05am #

    Addendum:

    The left — especially the sectarian, highly ideological left — has never held or shared any real political power in the United States, and that’s why the left doesn’t have any practical knowledge about how it works. All the left has are abstract theories, often from over a century or more old (long before modern political lobbies, especially in an electoral system), on *supposedly* what Marx or Mao or somebody said “wasn’t possible”.

    So, the left can be all-too-easily beguiled and misled by people like Chomsky et al about the Isreal lobby, it’s power, or how it works in the modern American/Western political system/s.

    -

  37. Max Shields said on February 3rd, 2009 at 8:14am #

    Let’s be clear, whether there is “evidence” of this conspiratorial effort to deflect Israel/Zionism by washing it, is one thing.

    To use that to obfiscate (to use the “it’s all about Zionists” term) the essential role of oil, is just mindless talk verging on we found the enemy and its THEM (we’re all little innocent lambs with fingers pointing int the opposite direction).

    I don’t follow Chomsky enough to know all the nuances and have strongly disagreed on his two state solution (one that many seem to agree with including Palestinians); I also think a boycott of Israel is absolutely essential and Chomsky seems to think otherwise (perhaps that’s the give away that he’s really an apologist). I can’t stand Zane, Bennis, or Lerner. I’m less inclined to find fault with Finkelstein (which makes me wonder if Jews are not the target here rather than Zionism – which I think is very problematic).

    But to be so mindless as to use Chomsky, et al as an excuse for the American Imperial Empire and its need for oil is ahistorical and stupid. Yes there are interests that converge with empire. Yes, Zionism is a horror in the Middle East. Yes, the Palestinian cause is more than just. I believe in a One-State solution. I think less will not bring peace and justice.

    But this USA is an EMPIRE and to conflate all of that and all of the history with Chomsky’s little band of “conspirators” is just – well it verges on a kind of fascistic thinking.

  38. bozh said on February 3rd, 2009 at 9:19am #

    bears repeating- and especially in view of anderson’s piece above- we shld never reward living or dead war criminals by recognizing their state.
    it does not matter whether ashkenazic folks have genetically none, tad, some, or much connection to shemites; they have no right to palestine.

    according to much adulterated torah the whorah, hebrews and arabs are descendants of shem (one of three noah’s sons) while according to historians akkadians, assyrians and canaanites are partly or much shemitic.
    according to torah, canaanites are descendants of ham, another son of noah. noah had cursed canaanites; wished them to be the lowest
    of low slaves.
    it is not known whether this was written before slaughter of canaanites or after. thnx

  39. Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA, said on February 3rd, 2009 at 9:21am #

    Ramsefall said on February 1st, 2009 at 11:37am #:

    “Both professors throw up rational arguments; a head-to-head debate would be compelling.”

    CHOMSKY HAS *DUCKED* AND *EVADED* _EVERY_ AND _ANY_ DEBATE THAT ANYONE QUALIFIED — ESPECIALLY JEFFREY BLANKFORT — WOULD HAVE ON CHOMSKY’S ISRAEL LOBBY DENIAL (BUT ANYONE CAN LOOK GOOD *SHADOWBOXING*).

    AND _AMY GOODMAN_ *PROTECTS* CHOMSKY FROM ANY CHALLENGES TO DEBATE, BY ANYONE QUALIFIED (LIKE BLANKFORT), ON THIS ISSUE

    — THIS SO,WHILE REGULARLY GIVING CHOMSKY PERIODIC HOUR-LONG HOMAGES ON DEMOCRACY NOW — TAKING UP THE ENTIRE SHOW — JUST SO WE REMEMBER THAT CHOMSKY *IS* OUR LEFTIST *GOD/GURU*.

    Amy Goodman will waste precious airtime with a debate between a liberal/progressive and some nutty right-winger (or right-of-centerers) spouting all the soundbite propaganda stuff we can already hear right-wingers (or right-of-centerers) say on any and every corporate mainstream news channel– including PBS and the BBC news — in the entire West, but I can’t think of a time that Amy Goodman has had two people *from the left* engage in a debate that would refine leftist analysis, consciousness and general thinking. Like with most of those modern and iconic Jewish-American leftists –those regularly on the national lecture circuit — Zionism and the Israel lobby is her moral flaw/weakness.

    Where is *our* American ‘Harold Pinter’?: anti-Zionist [British] Jew who blatantly called Israel’s politicians and the IDF “*THUGGGS*” on British and American TV.

    CHOMSKY CAN POSE LIKE HE’S THE *MOST* — BUT NEXT TO HAROLD PINTER, CHOMSKY DON’T COME *CLOSE*!!

    -

  40. Ramsefall said on February 3rd, 2009 at 9:28am #

    First of all, JA, proportional to the tens of millions of people sucked into mainstream news sources and perspectives, Chomsky is relatively unknown by many on the left or the right in the US. Outside of the Empire it’s another story. US mainstream has successfully blocked his perspectives for a reason — they don’t want him heard by the public which is why so many people don’t even know who the hell the guy is. Why would the media, i.e. the Establishment, want to silence someone who according to you and your sources is spinning a dysinformation campaign that favors Israel? The Establishment wishes to guide US opinion that is favorable of Israel, not the opposite. The criticism being made doesn’t add up.

    Secondly, while I haven’t personally heard Chomsky’s assertion against a boycott of Israel, in past and recent writings/seminars he is consistently critical of Israel’s illegal aggression toward Palestine. This doesn’t align with anything that would be considered support of the Jewish State, aside from a two-state solution based on practicality. After all, if there’s only a one-state solution in favor of Palestine, where are all the Jews supposed to go? A new and different group of refugees?

    Finally, referring to Israel as merely a lobby parallels the absurd belief that the US is not an Empire whose principle objective aside from ruling the world is to do so through the control of oil supplies, hence their presence in the Middle East to begin with. As Max asserts, without oil, there is no economy nor Imperial hegemony.

    Best to all.

  41. Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA, said on February 3rd, 2009 at 10:15am #

    -

    CORRECTION: ZIONIST *SPY* ORGANIZATIONS, LIKE THE *A*DL…

    Zionist *spy* organizations (like the JDL, which supplied information on progressive activists not only for Israel lobby organizations, and undoubtedly to “law enforcement” agencies, but also on then anti-Apartheid activists to the then white South African Apartheid government, and *certainly* to “law enforcement” agencies, and which is documented online from credible sources).

    [I'm sure, though, that the JDL is one too.]

    -

  42. albert said on February 3rd, 2009 at 10:21am #

    what is the jdl?

  43. Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA, said on February 3rd, 2009 at 10:56am #

    Ramsefall said on February 3rd, 2009 at 9:28am #:

    “First of all, JA, proportional to the tens of millions of people sucked into mainstream news sources and perspectives, Chomsky is relatively unknown by many on the left…in the US.”

    YOU’VE ALREADY DISCREDITED YOUR POST RIGHT HERE.

    “Outside of the Empire it’s another story. US mainstream has successfully blocked his perspectives for a reason — they don’t want him heard by the public which is why so many people don’t even know who the hell the guy is. Why would the media, i.e. the Establishment, want to silence someone who according to you and your sources is spinning a dysinformation campaign that favors Israel? The Establishment wishes to guide US opinion that is favorable of Israel, not the opposite. The criticism being made doesn’t add up.”

    I ALREADY SAID — A NUMBER OF TIMES IN MY OPEN EMAIL LETTER TO PROFESSOR ALAM — THAT CHOMSKY’S JOB IS TO WORK ON THE *LEFT*, NOT ON THE MAINSTREAM OR THE RIGHT.

    ALSO, THERE’S A *REASON* THAT CHOMSKY GOT TO BE A MULTIMILLIONIARE SENIOR TENURED PROFESSOR AT THE NATION’S MOST WELL-KNOWN TECHNICAL UNIVERSITIES

    — BUT FINKELSTEIN COULDN’T EVEN GET TENURE AT DEPAUL UNIVERSITY (HOW MANY PEOPLE EVEN KNOW WHAT *STATE*, OR EVEN PART OF THE *COUNTRY*, DEPAUL IS IN?).

    “_Secondly, while I haven’t personally heard Chomsky’s assertion against a boycott of Israel_ , in past and recent writings/seminars he is consistently critical of Israel’s illegal aggression toward Palestine. This doesn’t align with anything that would be considered support of the Jewish State, aside from a two-state solution based on practicality.”

    _MAYBE YOU SHOULD TRY *GOOGLE*!_

    “After all, if there’s only a one-state solution in favor of Palestine, where are all the Jews supposed to go? A new and different group of refugees?”

    YEAH, MAYBE THEY CAN BECOME “REFUGEES” BACK TO BROOKLYN AND THE OTHER CITIES AND SUBURBS OF AMERICA, CANADA, AUSTRALIA, AND THE REST OF THE WEST.

    PERSONALLY, I’D *MUCH* PREFER THE RACISTS GO SETTLE A PART OF *ANTARCTICA* RATHER THAN COME BACK TO THE WEST — BUT YOUR CONCERN FOR THEM IS TRULY TOUCHING…

    “Finally, referring to Israel as merely a lobby parallels the absurd belief that the US is not an Empire whose principle objective aside from ruling the world is to do so through the control of oil supplies, hence their presence in the Middle East to begin with. As Max asserts, without oil, there is no economy nor Imperial hegemony.”

    FOR ALL YOUR CRITICISMS OF SIMPLE-MINDED RIGHT-WING CATCHWORDS AND SLOGANS, MOST OF YOU WHITE-AMERICAN LEFTISTS LOVE *SIMPLE*, *ONE-WORD* ANSWERS TO EXPLAIN ABSOLUTELY *EVVVERYTHING*, DON’T YOU?

    I’VE GOT NO MORE TIME FOR SUCH FEEBLE THINKING: …I WON’T BE RESPONDING TO YOU AGAIN.

    “As Max asserts…”

    AGAIN, YOU’VE ALREADY DISCREDITED YOUR POST RIGHT HERE.

  44. Michael Dawson said on February 3rd, 2009 at 11:17am #

    Joseph Anderson is right. There is a reason Noam Chomsky is a tenured faculty member at MIT: He was and remains the most important linguist in human history. If he were a political analyst first, he wouldn’t have been allowed within a mile of MIT.

    And I love how all these supposedly super-radicals like Joseph continue to prefer blaming Jews to blaming the most powerful ruling class in human history for its most obvious and basic actions. If there were no Israel, or if Israel were not a rogue state, what would the Middle Eastern masses be focusing their ire on? That’s right: The oil royals.

    I’m equally fascinated by people who are trying to squeeze all this into the box of racism, who are themselves utterly insensitive to their own raving about Jews and their supposed (how, again — by making movies?) ability to control the corporate capitalist, market-totalitarian USA.

  45. Max Shields said on February 3rd, 2009 at 12:43pm #

    Michael Dawson, yes. And why is Norman Finkelstein NOT a tenured professor? Cannot Prof. Alam not discern who he’s calling what?

    Finkelstein has been arrested in Israel because of what he’s been writing about.

    Now Lerner and Bennis that’s a different story. I won’t call them Zionists but they are weak liberal. And Bennis has been in the way of a real anti-war movement.

    But the issue is the American Empire is in charge. That empire may be home to a number of warmongering tribes like APAIC and the right wing Zionists and neocons, but they are not the Empire, they are parasites to be sure, but the Empire is a welcoming host.

    The military industrial complex is not run by these schmucks.

    I question the mindset that sees only Zionism as the culprit when we have an empire with over 2 centuries of expansion and genocide in our midst. It seems lazy at best to think it THEM (the Zionists) when as Che said, We live in the belly of monster. It is the monster who feeds us as we go looking for others to blame for the hell we wreck on this planet.

  46. Max Shields said on February 3rd, 2009 at 3:27pm #

    John Anderson, assuming some level of reason, I’ll try once again to…to reason.

    Oil happens to be what was used to build this empire. Fossil in general has made this so-called Western civilization what it is. This energy source amplifies what humans could never accomplish without it.

    Fossil does the work of millions, perhaps billions of people. Natural gas and coal have their place, but oil is the primary supplier of Western material energy. This is NOT an ideology (unlike Zionism). It is a simple fact. The fact that it is simple does not mean that there is not a great deal of complexity that comes from it.

    But to deny reality is lunacy. So, Mr. Anderson. Stake your claim.

  47. Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA, said on February 3rd, 2009 at 7:39pm #

    Michael Dawson: “And I love how all these supposedly super-radicals like Joseph continue to prefer blaming Jews to blaming the most powerful ruling class in human history for its most obvious and basic actions.”

    *ME???* …HA-HA-HA!! …YOU SHOULD HEAR WHAT MY *JEWISH* FRIENDS HAVE TO SAY!

    SHIELDS, DAWSON AND RAMSEFALL: THE *ONE-NOTE* [the 'only *one* thing always explains *all* things'] THREE STOOGES — CURLEY, LARRY AND MOE!

    P.S. And if I recall correctly, Chomsky has been given the highest (i.e., elective) professorial title of “Univeristy Professor” at MIT. You think that one of the most elite universities in the Western establishment world gives it’s highest professorial title to anyone who’s a real threat to the system — and, especially, to *Zionism/Israel*? *They* know the *actual* role that Chomsky is playing, even if glassy-eyed white progressives/leftists *don’t*. And someone who gets to publish *anytime* he wants to: *never* has to go looking for a publisher or a distributor — unlike Finkelstein often has, or never has books like “The Holocaust Industry” (try to find that book on the shelf anywhere, even in Barnes & Noble or Borders) or “Beyond Chutzpah”, or otherwise anyone who intellectually attacks *Zionism itself*, like Joel Kovel’s book, “Overcoming Zionism”, or who exposes *phony* “rampant anti-Semitism” trumped up by the Israel lobby — nothing *Chomsky* has ever done. Finkelstein even had great trouble just landing a job at DePaul, let alone getting tenure (which was not only denied, but he was summarily and unceremoniously *fired* before the end of his term). You work on *anything* else (like linguistics, or philosophy, or psychology as with Kovel) and try to publish anything intellectually criticizing Zionism itself, or exposing phony “rampant anti-Semitism”, or calls for a *re-unified* secular democratic (i.e., 1-state) historic Palestine with *absolutely equal rights* for everyone regardless of ethnicity or religion, and see what happens.

    -

  48. Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA, said on February 3rd, 2009 at 8:00pm #

    albert said on February 3rd, 2009 at 10:21am #: “what is the jdl?”

    *C’mon* albert: you’re already at the *internet computer*.

  49. Michael Dawson said on February 3rd, 2009 at 10:03pm #

    Yo, Joe, I’ll go up against you every day, on any day, on any topic.

  50. Deadbeat said on February 4th, 2009 at 1:44am #

    Joseph Anderson writes…

    So, in fact, CHOMSKY, Finkelstein, Bennis, Lerner, Halper, Avnery, Zunes et al actually WORK — ON THE *LEFT* — TO *PROTECT* ISREAL AS A ZIONIST STATE. And, as such they also work — on the left — to OPPOSE ANY *PRACTICAL* NONVIOLENT RESISTANCE AGAINST ISREAL (economic, academic and athletic boycotts, divestments and sanctions — Chomsky used to openly brag that he opposed this — this time against Israeli apartheid) to at least put Israel’s atrocities in check, and would even deny the very terms of practical analysis of Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians (if you can believe it, like *Zionism*, let alone *apartheid*, *racism*, and, otherwise, certainly not 1-state or *re-unified* Palestine).

    This needs to be said and repeated. These so-called Left in their efforts to protect Israel by misdirecting the Left are complicit in permitting Zionism to flourish in the United States.

  51. Deadbeat said on February 4th, 2009 at 1:53am #

    Joseph Anderson writes…

    Indeed, it’s sad that there has been so much *CENSORSHIP* ON THE *LEFT* that this subject has been taboo for decades, and that the taboo had to be nationally breach by two *establishment* academics (Mearsheimer & Walt) who’s real and primary goal (like former Cold Warrior Zbigniev Brzezinski) is to improve U.S. imperialist foreign policy in the Mideast; global justice, in general, and justice for the Palestinians, in particular, are incidental issues for them.

    How said and revealing. It really exposes the mendacity of the U.S. “Left”. It exposes the mendacity of those here that use their rhetoric to obfuscate any building the needed solidarity to confront Zionism. The argument that challenging Zionism will “end all problem” coming from Max Shields and other are strawmen arguments. Clearly all problem won’t be resolved but by challenging Zionism as a racist ideology will help to MOBILIZE many especially people of color and anti-Zionist. This in turn will lead to actions against capitalism. History has shown that actions against racism leading to movements against capitalism. And the rhetoric coming from Chomsky, et al, has been the BEST friend for maintaining the “imperialist plutocracy” that the so-called “Left” professes to be against.

  52. Deadbeat said on February 4th, 2009 at 2:11am #

    Joseph Anderson writes…

    All this sounds hard to believe about ole Chomsky et al? Well, it wouldn’t be the first time in history that white intellectuals (and, especially, colonialists) engaged in lofty lectures about “freedom”, “democracy”, “human rights”, and “the people”, but who turned out to be highly, formally, “educated” RACISTS.

    And that is the root of the problem.

  53. Deadbeat said on February 4th, 2009 at 2:38am #

    Here are the links to the articles referenced by Joseph Anderson…

    The Left and the Israel Lobby

    Israel-lobby denial

  54. Deadbeat said on February 4th, 2009 at 2:53am #

    From the Israel-lobby denial …

    The antiwar Left would prefer that old-style American imperialism and the quest for oil had caused the Iraq War. They are the preferred enemies of the Left. They are the traditional villains. And they are safe villains. Mentioning Israel as a culprit would cause problems: it would lose support for the Left among activist Jews, and it would lead to hostility from the Israel lobby and mainstream Jewish groups.

    By way of contrast, no one ever got in trouble berating oil magnates or Arab sheiks — witness Michael Moore’s blockbuster 2004 documentary, “Fahrenheit 9/11,” which focuses on those alleged villains while ignoring the neocon/Israel connection to the war. [1] Also important is the fact that Jews, categorically, are considered to be victims; and it is hard for the Left to criticize an officially recognized victim group. In terms of left-wing psychology the ideal is to strike a radical, nonconformist pose without really alienating the powerful, thus avoiding any negative consequences as well as the cognitive dissonance that results from chiding designated victims. The process can go so far as to turn a man into an unintentional apologist for Israel. Such is the case with Stephen Zunes, a prominent leftist historian of the Middle East, whom the leftist Israel-critic Jeffrey Blankfort describes as a Noam Chomsky acolyte. [2]

    This was very evident when Obama was running for President of the United States. He bent over backwards for Zionism while he berated the oil companies. He abandoned his support for Rev. Wright as Wright defended Louis Farrakhan criticism of Zionism during Wright’s appearance at the National Press Club. Obama went to AIPAC and told the audience that Jerusalem should be the capital of Israel. Obama first appointment was the ardent Zionism, Rahm Emmanuel. His vice-president is an admitted Zionism — Joe Biden. And Hillary Clinton, who wants to annihilate Iran is his Secretary of State.

    Yet we see denial or twisted arguments from the “Left” in order to obfuscate the role and influence that Zionism has upon the U.S. political economy. Obama is hoping to use his support among African American to try to build a bridge between people of color and Zionism yet the Left has not strategy to block Obama desire for realignment. The only way this can be blunted is by outing Obama as the Zionist that he is and for the Left to build solidarity with people of color.

    Unfortunately as Joesph has pointed out racism on the Left may just be too entrenched. I do think that people of color will not succumb to Obama on this front because people of color has been harm by Zionism as well as Capitalism. Unfortunately Cynthia McKinney has not come out strongly against Zionism (Israel yes but not Zionism) but I think a new and younger generation are finally expressing their disdain for Israel and Zionism.

    I appreciate Joseph’s contribution because he is saying what most definitely needs to be said to so-called “Leftist” who are at best so misdirected that they don’t realize they are in fact aiding and abetting the spread of the racist ideology of Zionism.

  55. Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA, said on February 4th, 2009 at 4:02am #

    Thanks, Deadbeat. You are far more patient, and often even more eloquent, than I am.

    Furthermore, Chomsky is famous for his landmark, now vintage book, “Manufacturing Consent” (which I heard was actually the initial media idea/analysis of a good friend of his whom Chomsky never gave credit, and who later commited suicide), but Chomsky has — of course — *never* done *any* MEDIA ANALYSIS of how the *ISRAEL LOBBY* works — *another* PRACTICAL TOOL that he (and would for anyone else who’s beguiled/misled by him) *denies* the Palestinian human rights and liberation movement. He *refuses*, as any *PRACTICAL* matter, to take on the Israel lobby at all — a lobby that even *Mark* Shields, Democrat pundit for the PBS Newshour, says is so powerful that every major politician in America (and, he said, especially in Washington, D.C.) merely calls “The Lobby” (as in, ‘What would *The Lobby* say?’) — they don’t even do that for the *arms* industry — the number one organized domestic enemy in America against justice for the Palestinian people — and how it works in the media and politically. But, if you were a semi-closeted-Zionist Jew, you wouldn’t do that either.

    As I said before, they say that when the *Devil* comes in his *best* disguise, he will come as a *saint/prophet*, appearing to spout “scripture” (and lying jussst enough to make you think the rest is true and to mislead you). And the only thing I remember from the Bible is, “BEWARE OF FALSE PROPHETS.”

    ———————————————————————————————–

    { Thank goodness by Black parents taught me to *critically think* for *myself* and not be *tollld* what to think, *UNCRITICALLY*, by *anyone*. Thank goodness *I’m* not white, so I have no, especially, uncritical, blind-faith, _EMOTIONAL tendency_ at all to need some WHITE GURU– right-wing preacher, New Age mystic, or “leftist” pundit — not that *my* white Gentile/Jewish friends do either.

    Ironically, it’s *ANTI-INTELLECTUAL* of Chomsky to tell us not to examine the Israel lobby (while every *other* lobby he tells is to *follow*, as in examine and pay attention to, especially the *money*!), or to question/examine Zionism itself, or to think about boycotts, or to think about a secular democratic re-unified historic Palestine, or the right of Palestinian refugees/exiles to return (after at the *most* only +/-60 or so years) to wherever they were *actually* from in Israel-Palestine (given that Chomsky certainly doesn’t oppose *Jews* the so-called “right-of-return” after *2,000* years): ‘DON’T LOOK THERE!!; …DON’T DISCUSS IT !!; …DON’T DEBATE IT!!’ — reminds me of the medieval (and modified up to the *present*) Catholic church’s list of “Forbidden Topics/examinations”!

    My friends and I listened to Chomsky [*in part*, I grew up on Chomsky] up to the point where he starts **LYING** — and then we **STOP** listening to him, especially about what we *shouldn’t* do that denies people justice.

    As I also often say, I’M GLAD THAT CHOMSKY WASN’T “AN ABOLITIONIST” back in ante-bellum history: he would have TALKED A GOOD GAME, criticizing the South, but CHOMSKY WOULD HAVE DOWNRIGHT *OPPOSED* ANY *PRACTICAL* OPPOSITION/MEASURES AGAINST BRITISH & AMERICAN SLAVERY, let alone not even looking at or opposing the huge slavery/plantation lobby. CHOMSKY would have been one of those who said (regarding *MILLIONS* of ENDLESS *GENERATIONS* of BLACKS, men, women, children, even newborn babies), “…LET’S KEEP SLAVERY IN ALL OF THE SOUTH, BUT NOT ALLOW IT TO EXPAND BEYOND THAT.”

    Today Chomsky is, so-called, “an Anarchist”: “…LET’S KEEP ZIONISM IN MOST OF HISTORIC PALESTINE — dispossessing and displacing *MILLIONS* of *ENDLESS GENERATIONS* of PALESTINIAN FAMILIES — BUT NOT ALLOW IT TO EXPAND BEYOND THAT (TO THE REMAINING *15%* OF HISTORIC PALESTINE FOR THE AT LEAST *50%* OF THE OVERALL PEOPLE STILL NATIVE TO THERE).”

    WHAT A GUY!!

    I READ THAT BACK IN THE ’60’s BLACKS HAD A SAYING…: “WHY THAT’S *MIGHTY WHITE* OF HIM!”

    THIS IS THE GUY/GURU ALL THOSE TOTALLY*ENRAPTURED*, *GLASSY-EYED*, *UNCRITICAL* WHITE LEFTISTS ARE BLINDLY FOLLOWING. }

  56. dino said on February 4th, 2009 at 7:31am #

    If Chomsky is a zionist why his political books weren’t in Israeli libraries,why is called “antisemit” by every dreg commentator from Israel or USA.What Chomsky said is that the two states solutions is the more possible to be realized.He never said that this is implementation of justice in Palestine.Even Hamas is ready to recognized Israel in 67 borderies.Are they also hypocritical zionists?The Saudi plan of peace along rest of Arab countries and also with Iran accept Israel in these boundaries.Chomsky is the first who explained that Israel is the rejectionist of any compromise in the past and in the present.Regarding the Israel lobby,Chomsky said that is too simple to explain the policy of USA as a servant to the lobby.How could be explained, for instance,the vote of 395 congresmen and senators for the right of Israel to defend herself against 5.Almost sure everyone received a phone from a lobbyist but noone from them sees the war as ,for instance, James Petras sees it.It is easy to convince anyone who is indifferent or enemy to the other part.I’m sure that if the congresmen and senators had read Chomsky they would vote differently.

  57. Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA, said on February 4th, 2009 at 7:34am #

    Deadbeat said on February 4th, 2009 at 2:53am:

    From “Israel-Lobby Denial” (by Sniegoski)…

    The antiwar Left would prefer that old-style American imperialism and the quest for oil had caused the Iraq War. They are the preferred [BLOOD-DRIPPING RED MEAT] enemies of the [PAVLOVIAN] Left.

    By way of contrast, no one ever got in trouble berating oil magnates or Arab sheiks — witness Michael Moore’s blockbuster 2004 documentary, “Fahrenheit 9/11,” which focuses on those alleged villains while ignoring the neocon/Israel connection to the war.

    Thus we are to believe, by Michael Moore’s convenient racist scapegoating (the “leftist” who — when he wanted to actively support a probable *war criminal*, and a *Military General*, *Wesley Clark*, for president — also conveniently said that, “Mumia Abu Jamal is undoubtedly guilty, but he deserves a fair trial”!!! [then how do you know that he's "undoubtedly guilty"!!?]) that American presidents wake up in COLD SWEATS in the middle of the night ever FRIGHTFULLY WORRIED about what the RULING SAUDI EMIR thinks, BUT *NOT* WHAT THE ISRAEL LOBBY THINK.

    (This was also according to author Antonia Juhasz, “The Tyranny of Oil” — another one of those BLOOD-DRIPPING RED MEAT leftist best-sellers, A LEFTIST POLITICAL BODICE-RIPPER OF A BOOK — a 1-note “leftist” who also uses “OIL” to explain absolutely everything in the universe: after all, “OIL” ‘even explains every aspect of modern Empire!’ — but I fairly much demolished her on KALW-fm, Your Call radio show [searchable and audio archived online], in San Francisco, especially the 2nd time when I more easily intellectually cornered her, even more prepared for her bullsh*t from her first time arguments.

    Yahoo/Google “antonia juhasz”+”joseph anderson”+berkeley:
    “The Politics of An Israeli Extermination Campaign”
    http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2009/01/the-politics-of-an-israeli-extermination-campaign-backers-apologists-and-arms-suppliers/
    Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA, said on January 6th, 2009 at 2:02am)

    ——————————————————————————————–

    From “Israel-Lobby Denial” (by Sniegoski)…

    Also important is the fact that Jews, categorically, are considered to be victims…

    AND THEREFORE *WHITE* VICTIMS “_*CAN’T*_ BE PROFOUNDLY RACISTS OR EVER OPPRESSORS”.

    I wrote about this in a commentary in the UC Berkeley Daily Californian: “Zionist Claim to Israel: Modern-Day Apartheid” (available online).

    As Jeffrey Blankfort has said, “Jews were *not* always history’s worst or only victims. Sometimes they did much worse than others; other times they did much better than others; and variously so in between. And in different places they fared differently.”

    And Non-European Jews were so comfortable in the Arab world, and lived in such peace with the Arabs (who, unlike the Europeans, let Jews practice their religion), that they (N.E.J.) often had to be *bombed* and *scared* out of their Arab lands, driven to Israel, by Israeli/Mossad agents and the Israeli government (who typically worked internationally to not let them go anywhere else)!

    The largest non-European Jewish populations by far, before and around the time of the founding of Israel, were in Morocco and Iraq! Today non-European Jews still live in at least Syria, Jordan and Iran (one Jewish family in Israel went *back* to Iran, where an estimated 25,000 Jews still live), and some live in Egypt! Some Eastern European Jews today, prefer to go to *Germany* to live, rather than Israel. Some Eastern European Jews try to use Israel as the back door to go to the U.S., Canada, Australia, and Western Europe. And more than a few Jews living in Israel (one a famous Israeli academic and author who retired to *Italy*) have *left* Israel to go live elsewhere (Ilan Pappe now lives in London). And many Western Jews have no intention to even *visit*, let alone go live in, their “safe haven”[???] “Promised Land of milk & honey” in Israel.

    As Lenni Brenner has said, “Today, Jews, as a whole, are the most affluent and richest, most educated, most politically powerful minority in history.”)

    ——————————————————————————————–

    In terms of left-wing psychology the ideal is to strike a radical, nonconformist pose without really alienating the powerful, thus avoiding any negative consequences…

    Those are usually called “*LIBERALES*” OR “*FASHIONABLE* WHITE LEFTISTS”.

    ——————————————————————————————–

    The process can go so far as to turn a man into an unintentional apologist for Israel. Such is the case with Stephen Zunes, a prominent leftist historian of the Middle East, whom the leftist Israel-critic Jeffrey Blankfort describes as a Noam Chomsky acolyte.

    AIN’T NOTHING “UNINTENTIONAL” ABOUT ZUNES: HE’S PUBLICLY & PROUDLY *DECLARED* HIMSELF TO BE A ZIONIST, when I put the question directly to him, in his debate with Blankfort, at USF (University of San Francisco). IRONICALLY, ZUNES WAS ONCE (and maybe still is) CHAIR OF *PEACE* STUDIES AT USF! As we all know, most of American academia is “Zionist Occupied[/Intimidation] Territory” too.

    Now, a lot of those people like Chomsky, Zunes, Avnery, Bennis, Lerner et al won’t openly or readily admit it, but IF YOU KNOW TO *ASK* THEM — — instead of assuming that they aren’t — — they are almost situationally forced to *admit* it (or start doing the two-step shuffle) — OR BETTER YET, JUST *ASK* THEM IF THEY ARE AN _*ANTI-ZIONIST*_!! — SMOKE ‘EM OUT!! — they typically won’t lie, because they know that all the Zionist Jews and, especially, the Israel lobby are watching them! Ask them whether they morally support a re-unified secular democratic historic Palestine with absolutely equal rights for all people regardless of religion or ethnicity. THEN YOU’LL SEE HOW “LEFTIST” — EVEN SO-CALLED “ANARCHIST”, “MARXIST”, “TROTSKYIST”, OR EVEN “MAOIST” — THEY ARE.

    ——————————————————————————————–

    From Deadbeat:

    “This was very evident when Obama was running for President of the United States. He bent over backwards for Zionism…”

    There’s a new saying that, EVERY PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES NOW HAS TO FIRST RUN FOR ‘PRESIDENT OF *ISRAEL*’!

    ——————————————————————————————–

    “Obama is hoping to use his support among African American to try to build a bridge between people of color and Zionism…”

    *WON’T WORK*: BLACK PEOPLE KNOW THAT PALESTINIANS ARE ‘THE NIGGERS OF ISRAEL’.

    UNFORTUNATELY, MOST BLACK POLITICIANS REALIZE THAT THEY HAVE _A *NEW* MASSA_! — HAVING SEEN THE ISRAEL LOBBY OUST MCKINNEY AND HILLIARD —

    THIS SOMETHING — THAT GREAT “MUCKRAKING INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST” — GREG PALAST (A VIRULENT ANTI-PALESTINIAN RACIST) *NEVER MENTIONED* IN HIS *MISLEADING* AND RATHER DISRESPECTFULLY ENTITLED ARTICLE, “THE *SCREWING* OF CYNTHIA MCKINNEY”, NEVER MENTION.

    IN FACT, THAT GREAT LEFTIST GREG PALAST — ELECTIONS INVESTIGATOR — _*NEVER* EVEN *MENTIONS*_ THE ROLE OF _THE ISRAEL LOBBY_ IN AMERICAN ELECTIONS.

    ——————————————————————————————–

    ARE YOU *SSSICK* OF THOSE SLLLIMEY UNDERBELLIED LEFTIST ICONS YET?

    THESE ARE ALSO AMONG THE “PROGRESIVE” ICONS WHO, EVERY FOUR YEARS, **DEMOBILIZE** THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT, AND FUNNEL THEM INTO ELECTORAL POLITICS AND “NOT MAKE TROUBLE” FOR THE MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX *PRO-WAR*, ZIONIST-APPROVED, VIABLE DEMOCRAT(S), INSTEAD OF OUT TO A CONTINUING AND GROWING MOVEMENT.

    HENCE: “Obama first appointment was the ardent Zionism, Rahm Emmanuel. His vice-president is an admitted Zionism — Joe Biden. And Hillary Clinton, who wants to annihilate Iran is his Secretary of State. [Etc., etc., etc., ...]”

    ——————————————————————————————–

    “The only way this can be blunted is by outing Obama as the Zionist that he is…”

    *OUT* HIM!? …WHAT MORE DOES HE HAVE TO *DO*???

    ——————————————————————————————–

    I ONCE PERSONALLY ASKED OAKLAND CONGRESSWOMAN BARBARA LEE HOW SHE VOTED ON THE CONGRESSIONAL RESOLUTION ON ISRAEL’S 2006 ‘GUERNICA’ OVER LEBANON — AND SHE WOULDN’T EVEN TELL ME! (SHE *SUPPORTED* IT.)

    (As I said, Black politicians have *new* Massas now.)

    THE WOMAN WHO *PROUDLY* VOTED AGAINST AUTHORIZING THE *U.S.* WAR IN IRAQ DIDN’T EVEN WANT TO TALK ABOUT HER VOTE ON *ISRAEL’S* WAR ON LEBANON.

    AND SEE AN EXCELLENT COMMENTARY:

    The Berkeley Daily Planet
    [Berkeley's, CA, main newspaper]

    “Barbara Lee on Gaza: Too Little, Too Late”
    – by Henry Norr [anti-Zionist Jew and pro-Palestinian human rights activist]
    January 21, 2009

    http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2009-01-22/article/32039?headline=Barbara-Lee-on-Gaza-Too-Little-Too-Late

    ——————————————————————————————–

    [Btw, activists in Ireland -- where there not only have been demonstrations in every major city, town, and even in some villages, but also a retail, cultural, and athletic *boycott* campaign, a demand for economic boycotts by the government and other Irish institutions, a call for the government and universities to formally condemn Israel's atrocities in Gaza, a demand to expel the Israeli ambassodor and consular general, and nonviolent direct action in stores that sell Israeli products or that do business in Israel -- BRITISH AND IRISH PROGRESSIVE/LEFTIST ACTIVISTS ARE SO FAR AHEAD OF THE U.S. -- call what Israel has been doing over Gaza as ISRAEL'S _"GUERNICA OVER GAZA"_.]

    ——————————————————————————————–

    “Unfortunately Cynthia McKinney has not come out strongly against Zionism (Israel yes but not Zionism)…”

    Cynthia is a longtime casual friend of mine. YOU JUST DON’T KNOW HOW **VICIOUSLY** AND BADLY THE ZIONISTS ‘BEAT UP’ ON HER — *AND* HER *FAMILY*, ESPECIALLY HER FATHER, BACK IN GEORGIA.

    THEY TWISTED EVERY TRUTH AND TOLD EVERY LIE YOU COULD IMAGINE — AND *COULDN’T*!!

    JUST FOR HER CALLING FOR A *MODICUM* OF FAIRNESS IN U.S. FOREIGN POLICY FOR THE PALESTINIANS.

    THE ZIONISTS (AND THE *OTHER* _NUTCASES_ INSTIGATED BY THEM) WERE LITERALLY *TERRORIZING* — AS THE ONLY ‘TERRORISTS’ ALLOWED TO RUN FREE IN AMERICA — CYNTHIA:

    FOR A WHILE SHE HAD TO LIVE IN HER HOUSE WITH THE SHADES CONSTANTLY PULLED DOWN, COULDN’T GO NEAR THE WINDOWS, HAD BIG MALE RELATIVES AS ESCORTS AND BODY GUARDS, AND THE OUTSIDE OF HER HOUSE WAS OFTEN *TRASHED* OR *VANDALIZED* LATE AT NIGHT.

    IMAGINE YOUR *MOTHER* GOING THROUGH ALL OF THAT.

    A LESSER WOMAN — HELL, *MAN* — WOULD BE IN THERAPY TWICE A WEEK, FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES, OVER WHAT THE ISRAEL LOBBY PUT HER THROUGH, AND THE MEDIA FORCES THEY MARSHALLED AGAINST HER:

    THE ZIONISTS — USING ABC NEWS “NIGHTLINE” — EVEN SICCED ANOTHER BLACK WOMAN — THIS IS HOW ZIONIST-OCCUPIED CORPORATE MEDIA HIDES BEHIND ITS RACISM (IT IDEALY FINDS A NEGRO/NEGRESS FRONT) — MICHEL MCQUEEN MARTIN, ABC NEWS REPORTER ON CYNTHIA, TO TRASH AND, ESPECIALLY, RIDICULE CYNTHIA.

    Yahoo/Google search “joseph anderson”+”cynthia mckinney”+”michel [mcqueen] martin”+”ishmael reed”+counterpunch+”maynard institute”+”blackcommentator” — any suitable combination of the above — to see where me and my friends (including African American poet, novelist, playwright, essayist, and professor emeritus, Ishmael Reed) stomped anotha *hole* in Michel Martin’s ass over this, as far as the national Black community and other Black journalists were concerned. It became a very big story among the Black-American intelligentsia then.

    ZIONIST JEWS HAVE *ALWAYS* EITHER *EXPLOITED*, *USED* OR *’BEAT UP’* ON BLACKS FOR ZIONIST PURPOSES.

    (SEE online, “Fraud Fit for a King: Israel, Zionism and the Misuse of MLK”, by Tim Wise, anti-racist, anti-Zionist, Jewish-American.)

    (Or Yahoo/Google search: “joseph anderson”+”russell simmons” — hiphop mogul:

    “Response to Russell Simmons Op-Ed re Blacks & anti-Semitism: An Educational Commentary”
    – by Joseph Anderson
    http://pub12.ezboard.com/fpoliticalpalacefrm21.showMessage?topicID=198.topic)

    ——————————————————————————————–

    EVEN THAT “GREAT *PROGRESSIVE*” COMEDIAN AND LATE NIGHT PROGRESSIVE SATIRIST ICON” _*JOHN STEWART*_ — *JEWISH* — NASTILY ATTACKED CYNTHIA MCKINNEY (altho she wasn’t there) ON HIS SHOW: VERBALLY ‘BEATING UP’ ON A BLACK WOMAN.

    NOT TOO “PROGRESSIVE” FOR THAT!

    ——————————————————————————————–

    THANKS AGAIN, Deadbeat. Your eloquence is much appreciated.

    -

  58. Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA, said on February 4th, 2009 at 8:17am #

    Yahoo/Google search:

    Left Curve, no. 29
    2005
    “DAMAGE CONTROL: NOAM CHOMSKY AND THE ISRAEL-PALESTINE CONFLICT”
    – by Jeffrey Blankfort [anti-Zionist, Jewish-American journalist], also a commentary contributor to Dissident Voice

    Left Curve, no. 28
    2003
    “A WAR FOR ISRAEL”
    – by Jeffrey Blankfort

    “Yes, Blame the Lobby”
    – by Jeffrey Blankfort (the nation’s, perhaps the *world’s*, leading leftist expert on the American Israel lobby and will have a new book out on the lobby this year)
    April 11, 2006
    http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Apr06/Blankfort11.htm

    (And there are numerous other articles online and elsewhere by Jeffrey Blankfort.)

    In fact, I’m honored to say that Blankfort’s commentary and my analytical commentary on the Israel lobby both appeared in 2006 in Dissident Voice (his in April and mine in June).

    “The Left and the Israel Lobby”
    by Joseph Anderson
    June 8, 2006

    (And there are numerous other articles online and elsewhere by Joseph Anderson, but not nearly as many as Blankfort.)

    [Do let us know when *you* Ramsefall get anything published by a reputable publisher, if ever at all.]

  59. Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA, said on February 4th, 2009 at 8:55am #

    Ramsefall said on February 4th, 2009 at 5:55am #:

    “So, Joseph thinks that Chomsky is famous for one of his many books, Manufacturing Consent? Comical, but he is entitled to his point of view.”

    IT *WILL* BE *NEWS* WHEN Ramsefall *FINALLY* FINDS OUT (but then it’s not fair to use his LLLOWWW intelligence as ANY standard for intelligence) — YOU’LL SEE WHY I DON’T BOTHER WITH THAT FFOOOLLL (IT’S ALLL TOO EAZZZY)!:

    Chomsky and the Quality Paperback Book Club
    July 21, 2008

    from an interview with Chomsky about the film Manufacturing Consent, based on the book.

    CHOMSKY: … the positive impact of it has been astonishing to me. Mark can give you the details, but outside of the United States, the film is shown all over the place, and even inside the United States it was shown to some extent.

    INTERVIEWER: It was in a lot of cities.

    CHOMSKY: Yeah, but in every other country it’s been on national television.

    INTERVIEWER: It came to Seattle four times and sold out every screening.

    CHOMSKY: Okay, but everywhere else it was on national television.

    Chomsky’s book “Manufacturing Consent,” published in 1988, was also wildly popular. The book bravely identifies the fact that “America’s government and its corporate giants exercise control over what we read, see and hear.” The book was reviewed very favorably in the New York Times, which called it “[A] compelling indictment of the news media’s role in covering up errors and deceptions in American foreign policy of the past quarter century.”

    Four of his books have been made into films, among which Manufacturing Consent has been called (by Inroads magazine) “among the most viewed documentaries of all time.”

    -

  60. Hue Longer said on February 4th, 2009 at 8:59am #

    Hello Joseph,

    I don’t have a problem at all with suggesting Chomsky is a closeted Zionist (or anything else for that matter) but Joseph, you are having way too much fun in your vitriolic approach. Also, the asterisks are causing an epilepsy inducing strobe light effect when I read what you have to say and the caps read like you are screaming. I’d like to think I’m not prone to throwing out the truth with the man, but though your approach has nothing to do with what you’re saying, it may cause some to at least ignore what you are saying.

    Having said that, I don’t believe in protecting heroes but my take on Chomsky is that if he has these leanings or loyalties, they’re not from a consciously insidious support for Zionism. I’ll entertain anything though!

  61. Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA, said on February 4th, 2009 at 11:40am #

    -

    Deadbeat said on February 4th, 2009 at 1:53am #:

    How said and revealing. It really exposes the mendacity of the U.S. “Left”. It exposes the mendacity of those here that use their rhetoric to obfuscate any building the needed solidarity to confront Zionism. The argument that challenging Zionism will “end all problem” coming from Max Shields and other are strawmen arguments. Clearly all problem won’t be resolved but by challenging Zionism as a racist ideology will help to MOBILIZE many especially people of color and anti-Zionist. This in turn will lead to actions against capitalism. History has shown that actions against racism leading to movements against capitalism. And the rhetoric coming from Chomsky, et al, has been the BEST friend for maintaining the “imperialist plutocracy” that the so-called “Left” professes to be against.

    —————————————————————————————–

    I COULDN’T RESIST. HERE’S TO YOU, “DEADBEAT”, AND TO ALL DV READERS WHO STRIVE TO *THINK* INDEPENDENDTLY.

    THIS FROM A *REALLY, REALLY* INTELLIGENT AND EXTREMELY ARTICULATE, POLITICALLY PASSIONATE, AND INCISIVE LEFTIST INTERNATIONAL FRIEND OF MINE WHO COMES FROM A *DEEPLY* POLITICAL CULTURE AND A SOCIETY OFTEN STILL IN TURBULENT FERMENT — A REAL SCHOLAR [he would just fall down *laughing* at Ramsefell, Shields and Dawson, the 3 Stooges of DV comment posts -- even more than *I* do -- and wouldn't even give them the time of day] :

    Zionism is real. We see its tragic results everyday. People need not only look at its victims and decide, “Oh, bad Israeli government policies”, or “How sad!”, but need to understand what nationalism, religious bigotry, imperialism, and capitalism all mean and how they manifest themselves in every day life. Learning about Zionism is not an abstract discussion. It is also an education in the previous subjects.

    In our discussions we need to bring, use, actually repeat as much as we can the word Zionism, its implications, its meaning, its usage and its results.

    When I started using the unacceptable word “capitalism” to my “dumb” friends at work while discussing daily events, they were rolling their eyes as if to say, “Here we go again!” Guess what!: these days, albeit with a smile, they open the subject of capitalism and we are having long and sane discussions about general capitalist structures, its laws of motion, results and possibilities or short comings. The concept of “capitalism” entered their dictionary. Instead of seeing the capitalist world as “normal” I think I was able to change the discussion to “capitalism” vs. “socialism.”

    I think this was a progressive development. But, turning back to Finkelstein [telling progressives/leftists not to talk about or even use words like Zionism, or apartheid (applied to Israel), or colonialism (applied to Israel), or even racism (applied to Israel), or Israel lobby, etc., all the verbal tools of intellectual and political analysis], how could this have ocurred if I dumbed down my arguments? This effort sugar coats the truth and prevents facing the reality.

    If Finkelstein uses this as a tactic, I could maybe understand his intentions, but I would still refuse it when the subject is Zionism. In our organizing the masses (in my country), as a tactic, we refrained from discussing religion. When you have an armed civil war going on on the streets, engaging in discussions of whether Allah exists, or not, is not a priority, and it divides the masses on unnecessary, abstract lines. Especially when people had started to severe their ties to religion, already, by themselves, anyway, and had started fighting against a neo-colonial, capitalist regime and fascism.

    However, Zionism, as an expression of imperialism and nationalism, could be used to explain many things by the leftists. It is far from being abstract. Starting with Zionism one could talk about imperialism in the 19th century, the creation of a national bourgeoisie, comprador classes, imperialism becoming an “internal affair”, human rights, NAZI ideology, birth of nations in the era of imperialism, neo-colonialism, capitalist state, neo-colonial type fascism, …EVERYTHING!

    Actually, using Zionism we had endless discussions with my Arab friends, which inevitably turned the discussion to imperialism and capitalism. They resisted these concepts (prior to the Iraq war) and only wanted to concentrate on Zionism and Jews, but through this subject and long discussions they too started using the terms because Zionism is related to the more broader subjects, whether you like it or not.

    “Imperialism” is such a word. Instead of dumbing down our arguments against the reality of imperialism, I think the right thing to do is to make people learn, understand and think about this fact. Many people, including intellectuals, or well read people have not been exposed to the concept or only accept it as a distant and historical phenomenon related to others in the past and never to US. Should we not mention “imperialism” and talk only about the “greed” or “bad Bush” or “mistakes the US makes”? If Finkelstein is correct, that is exactly what we should do.

    Using, forcing and pressing our words and concepts, will reveal the reality and truth. We need to oppose the current dominant culture, and its convoluted terminology, and use our tools. This will also expose the double meanings used by the ruling classes (words like “democracy”, “freedom”, “dictatorship”, “imperialism”, “fascism”, etc.) which is a prerequisite to pull the masses from the grasp of a lying system and bolster an alternative culture, even though it may not be socialistic yet, in a society that is ripe for a change. Discussion of Zionism is pregnant with many rich other subjects that it embodies. I use it as much as I can in every opportunity.

    -

  62. bozh said on February 4th, 2009 at 2:41pm #

    let’s forget for a moment about socialism, capitalism, zionism, fascism, or communism but dwell on a phenomena of utmost import: to what degree is there an anomie on intrn’l and interpersonal levels.

    we cld start with US and ask to what degree it is anomic (lawless) on interpersonal level? to quite a degree, eh?
    but is US utterly lawless on int’l level? close to it, right!
    we also need to dwell more on how a society is structured rather on mode of production.
    i think that some people confuse socialism (a structure of society) with a way of production.
    fascism (a structure) can be compared with socialism or any other societal structure.
    but a mode of production such as a capitalism (there are potentially an infinite number) cannot be compared with a societal structure.

    on the other hand, some people confuse or conflate socialism with a pantisocracy or even utopia.
    and having used the word “dystopia” for your kind of socialism, say it is not possible to have a socialism.
    if one clamors for more democratization, one may be told, Well, you can’t have a society were all rule equally (pantisocracy)
    thnx

  63. Garrett said on February 4th, 2009 at 4:08pm #

    Make no mistake, racial/ethnic/gender/orientation hatred plays a significant role in both domestic and foreign policy. Hatred/ignorance is exploited as a way of dividing and conquering. It is a mean to an end. The “end” (or, rather, the ultimate objective) is the acquisition and accumulation of wealth.

    Take away Israel and US Middle Eastern policy would have the same objective. Take away oil and US Middle Eastern policy would change drastically.

    When I hear Chomsky suggest to Amy Goodman that the best solution would be for Israelis to leave the region, as he did in a recent interview, I don’t get the sense that he’s a “Zionist.” Of course, I don’t know that it makes a whole hell of a lot of difference. This debate is a distraction. The plutocracy is driven by greed, and aided by hatred. Not the other way around. Collapsing and replacing the plutocracy should be the goal.

  64. bozh said on February 4th, 2009 at 5:14pm #

    garret,
    exactly! change the societal structure! or change how we treat one another as well as how each layer of society treat all the others and the other way around.
    a layer of society, broad tho, like medical class of people has less respect for working class than for political, legal, business classes.
    aspiration by the working class generally speaking are detered by higher classes.
    higher classes tend be more anomic/ fascist, etc. and less egalitarian.thnx

  65. Shabnam said on February 4th, 2009 at 8:18pm #

    {When I hear Chomsky suggest to Amy Goodman that the best solution would be for Israelis to leave the region, as he did in a recent interview, I don’t get the sense that he’s a “Zionist.”}
    You are wrong. Chomsky never said the above LIE. He in an interview with Amy Goodman said the following:

    {AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us. Well, let’s start off by your response to President Obama’s statement and whether you think it represents a change.
    NOAM CHOMSKY: It’s approximately the Bush position. He began by saying that Israel, like any democracy, has a right to defend itself. That’s true, but there’s a gap in the reasoning. It has a right to defend itself. It doesn’t follow that it has a right to defend itself by force. So we might agree, say, that, you know, the British army in the United States in the colonies in 1776 had a right to defend itself from the terror of George Washington’s armies, which was quite real, but it didn’t follow they had a right to defend themselves by force, because they had no right to be here. So, yes, they had a right to defend themselves, and they had a way to do it—namely, LEAVE.

    In the case of Israel, it’s exactly the same. They have a right to defend themselves, and they can easily do it. One, in a narrow sense, they could have done it by accepting the ceasefire that Hamas proposed right before the invasion—I won’t go through the details—a ceasefire that had been in place and that Israel violated and broke. Israel can defend itself by stopping its crimes. Gaza and the West Bank are a unit. Israel, with US backing, is carrying out constant crimes, not only in Gaza, but also in the West Bank, where it is moving systematically with US support to take over the parts of the West Bank that it wants and to leave Palestinians isolated in unviable cantons, Bantustans, as Sharon called them. Well, stop those crimes, and resistance to them will stop.}

    Chomsky means Israel should leave the occupied land, West Bank and Gaza, not the region. Chomsky strongly believes in ‘Jewish’ state and not ‘one country’ for all. He is also against divestment. In the past he was not very careful and expressed his objection about divestment against Israel clearly. Now, he maintains the same position but different presentation. He tries to show that divestment does not work; therefore, it is not a good idea.

    {AMY GOODMAN: Noam, we only have thirty seconds.
    NOAM CHOMSKY: Is divestment a proper tactic? Well, you know, if you look back at South Africa, divestment became a proper tactic after years, decades of education and organizing, to the point where Congress was legislating against trade, corporations were pulling out, and so on. That’s what’s missing: the education and organizing which makes it an understandable move. And, in fact, if we ever got to that point, you wouldn’t even need it, because the US could be brought in line with international opinion. }

  66. Garrett said on February 4th, 2009 at 8:50pm #

    Perhaps I misinterpreted him. But, again, I don’t think it matters very much. I’ll say it again, US foreign policy is driven by greed and aided by hatred. Thinking it’s driven by hatred and aided by greed seems nonsensical to me. That, by no means, should suggest to you that I don’t think there’s a hate problem. There most certainly is (within government and the populace–with the former exploiting the latter).

  67. Shabnam said on February 4th, 2009 at 9:59pm #

    {I’ll say it again, US foreign policy is driven by greed and aided by hatred.}

    Do you think Israel foreign policy is not driven by greed and aided by hatred? I bet you the answer is YES. The last 60 years show that Israel has no intention to have peace with her neighbors and is determined to steal all of the historical land of Palestine using Israel Lobby and its extensive extension, according to Gore Vidal a fifth column, in Washington to achieve this goal. Contrary to what Noam Chomsky is preaching that Israel wants peace but the US imperialism does not allow it – is piece of rubbish which has misled American public. In reality, is Israel that has imprisoned ‘peace’ to finalize its project, to wipe Palestinian off their land.
    The fact is, the neocon, mainly zionist Jews, are responsible for Iraq war to remove Israel’s enemies through destabilization of the region including Sudan, to re- draw the map in favor of Israel’s position in the to make Israel the dominant power, militarily and economically, in the region so Israel be able to establish “greater Israel’ where goes from Mauritania to Afghanistan. Why not? Israel is using American power to achieve her goals by selling Israel’s interest as American’s interest using its fifth column in major western capitals to achieve her plan.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4MdyJDnSoI

  68. Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA, said on February 4th, 2009 at 11:36pm #

    Garrett said on February 4th, 2009 at 4:08pm #:

    “When I hear Chomsky suggest to Amy Goodman that the best solution would be for Israelis to leave the region, as he did in a recent interview, I don’t get the sense that he’s a “Zionist.””

    DO ALL YOU PEOPLE AND CHOMSKYITES HAVE TO *SHAMELESSLY LIE* — ALL THE TIME — TO TRY TO MAKE YOUR PHONY POINTS?

    AND I *KNEW* IT WAS A *LIE* WHEN YOU SAID IT — ESPECIALLY BECAUSE YOU WOULDN’T EVEN _DOCUMENT_ THE ALLEGED SUPPOSED ‘QUOTE’.

    Shabnam (February 4th, 2009 at 8:18pm) HAD TO GO GET THE *ACTUAL* QUOTE.

  69. Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA, said on February 4th, 2009 at 11:54pm #

    Thanks, Shabnam.

  70. Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA, said on February 4th, 2009 at 11:54pm #

    HOW CHOMSKY *LIES* — TO PROTECT ISRAEL AS A ZIONIST STATE IN 85% OF HISTORIC PALESTINE:

    Shabnam said on February 4th, 2009 at 8:18pm #:

    {AMY GOODMAN: Noam, we only have thirty seconds.

    NOAM CHOMSKY: Is divestment a proper tactic? Well, you know, if you look back at South Africa, divestment became a proper tactic after years, decades of education and organizing, to the point where Congress was legislating against trade, corporations were pulling out, and so on. That’s what’s missing: the education and organizing which makes it an understandable move. And, in fact, if we ever got to that point, you wouldn’t even need it, because the U.S. [YOU SEE WHERE HE ACTUALLY *REALLY* BLAMES THE CAPITALIST *GOYIM/U.S.*? -- RATHER THAN DIRECTLY THE *ZIONIST JEWS* WHO ARE *ACTUALLY* CARRYING OUT THE *BRUTAL OPPRESSING*! -- BUT CHOMSKY/JEWS DON'T BLAME *CAPITALISM* FOR THE *NAZIS*] could be brought in line with international opinion. }

    ———————————————————————————————-

    To: [deleted]
    From: Joseph Anderson [deleted]
    Sent: Wed 2/20/08 1:49 PM

    HOW CHOMSKY LIES — actually TO PROTECT ISRAEL as an ideologically Jewish/Zionist state:

    >September 29, 2006
    >
    >Rose Aguilar
    >Host
    >Your Call Radio program
    >KALW radio station
    >San Francisco, CA
    >
    >Matt Martin
    >General Manager
    >KALW radio station (91.7-FM)
    >San Francisco, CA
    >
    >Subject: ATTN: ROSE AGUILAR, MATT MARTIN — RE NOAM
    >CHOMSKY ON KALW’S “YOUR CALL” RADIO PROGRAM
    >Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 11:42:40 -0700
    >
    >Dear Rose & Matt:
    >
    >I just wanted to follow up just for your own information (if helpful),
    >regarding the KALW “Your Call Radio” program interview with Noam
    >Chomsky on Tuesday, September 26, 2006, and my call to your
    >show at 31:48 after the hour.
    >
    >Since, as my being a mere caller, I was at a distinct inherent
    >disadvantage regarding Chomsky’s ability to, frankly, just lie in
    >response to my question about his opposition statements to a
    >sanctions, boycott or divestment campaign against Israel for its
    >continued brutal oppression against the Palestinian people, I wanted
    >to follow up here if you don’t mind.
    >
    >I want to regretfully say that Chomsky lied when he said that he
    >never said that he opposed a divestment movement against Israel
    >because (quote), “the majority of the population opposes it”
    >(meaning, of course Israeli Jews). I said in my question beforehand
    >that human rights activists don’t first ask the *oppressors* if they
    >would accept sanctions and accede to the *oppressors’* inevitable
    >objection.
    >
    >Anyway, in addition to his speeches, Chomsiky said this in a May 10,
    >2004, published interview with Harvard Professor Christopher J. Lee
    >in “Safundi”, a South African scholarly journal, an interview
    >republished in Z Magaine in May, 2004. This was also documented
    >and covered in detail in Jeffrey Blankfort’s article, “Damage Control:
    >Noam Chomsky and the Israel-Palestine Conflict” [available online].
    >
    >Chomsky also said that a sanctions movement would be “a gift to the
    >utlra-right-wing” in Israel and the U.S., and would hurt the victims.
    >But the *victims* — the Palestinians — *are* calling for an
    >international sanctions/boycotts/divestment campaign against
    >Israel. So, Chomsky is opposing what the victims themselves are
    >asking for to help eliminate their oppression. In addition, Chomsky’s
    >colleague and sometimes co-author, Ed Herman, whom Chomsky
    >alluded to in your interview, OPPOSES Chomsky’s views on sanctions
    >(and on Chomsky’s dismissal of the Israel lobby) and finds
    >Chomsky’s views on these issues logically and morally inexplicable.
    >
    >
    >[The late EDWARD SAID also DISAGREED WITH CHOMSKY's
    >opposition to sanctions, boycotts and divestments; Chomsky's
    >opposition to a secular, democratic, 1-state, re-unified historic >Palestine, with equal rights and privileges for all regardless of
    >religion and ethnicity, solution; Chomsky's opposition to an all-but
    >-token Palestinian Right-of-Return; Chomsky's willingness to see the
    >85% of historic Palestine that Israel has directly taken over for Jews
    >finally ethnically cleansed of its approximately 1 million Palestinian
    >citizens; and Chomsky's (the "Anarchist") willingness to see that
    >85% of historic Palestine that was violently taken over by the
    >Zionists -- largely through Zionist *Jewish* terrorism -- remain a
    >Zionist state; as well >as other strong disagreements with Chomsky.
    >
    >Yet, icon AMY GOODMAN of, the generally very good, Democracy
    >Now national radio program -- WHO'S ALWAYS PROTECTED >CHOMSKY FROM LEFT DEBATE OR VALID CRITICISM with her
    >progressive media 'empire' and left gate-keeping -- JUST AS KPFA
    >GENERALLY PROTECTS STEPHEN ZUNES -- never mentions
    >such very strong disagreements when she pretends that there were
    >none between Chomsky and Said, since, I guess, for her, Said has
    >safely passed on (and therefore can be "beloved" by her and
    >Chomsky without any 'problems'). And so, the false history re-writing
    >begins or continues by some of the gate-keeper icons.]
    >
    >
    >Actually, it’s Chomsky’s, as America’s leading leftist guru, opposition
    >to sanctions and his dismissal of the Israel lobby that is “a gift to the
    >ultra-right-wing” in Israel and the U.S. government.
    >
    >Finally, I regret to say that Chomsky also lied about the history of
    >the, then, American anti-apartheid divestment movement against
    >South Africa, when he said that some great public consensus had
    >been built up and established *before* the American divestment
    >campaign was begun.
    >
    >The anti-Apartheid sanctions/boycott/divestment campaign against
    >South Africa was not begun ONLY *AFTER* some huge American
    >public consensus had been established: it started out *very small*;
    >it often started out in places (actually most of the country then)
    >where most people didn’t know all that much, if anything, about
    >South African apartheid and its racial system of laws and
    >restrictions; and the campaigns, along with the mock shanty towns
    >on many campuses (often in small campustowns/cities), were used
    >as an educational and consciousness-raising tool (precisely what
    >Chomsky calls for with regard to Israel’s oppression) to *BUILD UP*
    >public awareness and support for economic divestment. And we
    >activists certainly weren’t able to change U.S. government policy first
    >(Reagan was a *friend* of apartheid South Africa). In one sentence:
    >The anti-Apartheid divestment movement against South Africa was
    >*itself* a basis of the groundwork to build up and establish an
    >international political anti-Apartheid movement in support of the
    >oppressed black South Africans.
    >
    >The big establishment politicians that Chomsky claimed were all
    >lining up to get arrested in protests (like in front of the White House)
    >mostly happened toward the *end* of the divestment movement
    >(when it was, of course, politically much safer in their perceived
    >situation), *not* at the beginning.
    >
    >[Even Congressman Ron Dellums constantly opposed language
    >criticizing Israel's alliance with the apartheid South African
    >government.]
    >
    >If a divestment campaign against Israel would be seized upon as
    >”anti-Semitic”, I remember when the divestment campaign against
    >apartheid South Africa was seized upon by many politicians and/or
    >the mainstream media as “communist” and “supporting terrorism”
    >and ironically “racist” (against *whites* in apartheid South Africa!),
    >and that the black South Africans would have an anti-white bloodbath
    >and throw all the white South Africans into the sea if apartheid fell —
    >whites who claimed that, “Unlike Israeli Jews, we [whites] have no
    >other place to go (have no American or >European suburbs and
    >cities to go back to).”
    >
    >Since I was at a distinct inherent disadvantage as a caller, I hope
    >that in some future interview with Chomsky or anyone else —
    >especially anyone Palestinian — on some related issue, I hope that
    >you bring this up so that someone can correct Chomsky’s protecting
    >Israel (from an article of the >same name, “Protecting Israel:
    >Chomsky’s Way”). I’m sure that it’s not the first time that a white
    >Western intellectual has become quite disengenous, diversionary,
    >and inconsistent, and even immoral (Chomsky claims that Israel is,
    >in effect, “just following orders” from the U.S. government — where
    >have we heard *that* echo before) when it hypocritically comes too
    >close to home for the ethnic privileges of either him, his friends or
    >relatives and/or *his* ethnic group. (And Chomsky has ducked
    >*any* public debate, on the radio or in person, on this issue
    >because he knows that he wouldn’t just be able to cast off these
    >kinds of lies and logical or moral inconsistencies, without being
    >directly challenged.) Sad, but true.
    >
    >(Also see, “Gnome Chomsky” — a *GREAT* little poem!,
    >http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/133840/index.php, which
    >nicely encapsulates Noam Chomsky on Israel.
    >
    >
    >Sincerely,
    >
    >Joseph Anderson
    >
    >Berkeley, CA

  71. dino said on February 5th, 2009 at 2:48am #

    Shabnam,can You give a link for that:”Contrary to what Noam Chomsky is preaching that Israel wants peace but the US imperialism does not allow it – is piece of rubbish which has misled American public. In reality, is Israel that has imprisoned ‘peace’ to finalize its project, to wipe Palestinian off their land.”.I never heard or read Chomsky saying “Israel wants peace”,but I remember that he said that any peace plane had been sabotaged by Israel and between the peace planes he noted American initiatives as William Rogers’s plane or Jimmy Carter.Yes, the left explains history by materials motives but they presents the facts in a real way.What is unknown are the real facts and Chomsky or other leftists never distorted the facts.Look at the last war in Gaza on he wanted and did i.Never said Chomsky said Israel is a victim in the conflict .And probably material motives can’t be separated from ideologies.If Joseph or you believe that Clinton knows the reality in ME as Petras sees it and only the lobby makes her to threat Iran with oblivion then, i think,You are wrong.Clinton had been educated in such way (and not by the lobby) that she can says such things.The lobby plays a role:to convince people who are almost convinced,the lobby never will manage to convince James Petras about the Israeli’s justice .

  72. Deadbeat said on February 5th, 2009 at 3:09am #

    dino you need to improve the articulation of your rhetoric. You are not making any sense. It is poorly constructed and while you are making demand for links you offer none to back your assertions. Clinton is on record with her threat of annihilating Iran. She made the remark during one of her debates with Obama. Therefore it is not a “belief” as you phrased it. It is a fact. A fact is something that you unfortunately don’t offer in your diatribe.

  73. dino said on February 5th, 2009 at 7:06am #

    Deadbeat,I am sorry for the lack of sens in my rhetoric.I think that my English is not enough well but the issue interested me because I am living in Israel and I believe that I know th reality and I think that Chomsky is devoted to that reality..In the foreword to “Fateful triangle” Edward said wrote:”F.T. may be the most amitious book ever attempted on the conflict between Zionism andthe Palestinians viewed as centrally involving the United State….The facts are there to be recognized for Chomsky,although no one else has ever recognized them so sistematically…There is something profoundly moving about a mind of such noble ideals repeatedly stirred on behalf of human suffering. and injustice…Chomsky major claim is that Israel and the USA-esecially the latter-are rejectionist opposed to peace,whereas the Arabs ,including the PLO,have for years been trying to accomodate themselves to the reality of Israel……It is Chomsky’s contention that liberal intelligentsia (Irving Howe,Arthur Goldberg,Alan Dershowitz,Michael Walzer,Amos Oz,Jane Fonda,Tom Hayden,Avineri,Martin Peretz)and even segments of the organized left are more culpable ,more giving to lying ,than conservative are

    pg.44.Regarding the position of Israel as a rejectionist state. “…the two major political groupings in israel do not differ in a fundamental way with regard to the occupied territories.Both agree that israel should effectively control them;both insistently reject any expression of Palestinian national rights”
    pg.42 regarding American peace plan rejected by Israel. ..”As far as the US is concerned,there has been internal conflict over the issue throughout the period.At one extreme ,the Rogers Plan announced by Secretary of state William Rogers in Dec 69,reflected the international consensus of the time.At the other extreme,Henry Kissinger advocated the rejectionist position…

    I hope that the quotas are relevant for what i tried to say.I ensure you that i not use any rhetoric and i tried sincerely to asses the reality.
    About Clinton i said that she threatened Iran with obliteration but i believe that that can’t be the lobby influence, that is how Clinton thinks.I gave as example one like James Petras because his personality so different from Clinton ,never would say such a threat whatever pressure a lobby will do on him.
    Thanks for the time

  74. Max Shields said on February 5th, 2009 at 9:08am #

    dino,

    Your comments on Chomsky are interesting particularly that he has blasted the American liberal establishment as even worse (and I agree).

    But here DB and JA are convinced that Chomsky is a master deflector and as such no matter what he says it must always be seen as pro-Zionism (an argument meant to lead to some support for Israeli occupation). I, personally, totally support holding any public figure accountable for what they say. But the conspiracy, DB and JA (and those they quote) weave is insidious. One can reject what Chomsky says (as I have on occasion) without dubbing him a Zionist “mouthpiece”.

  75. Shabnam said on February 5th, 2009 at 10:28am #

    Dino writes:

    {Shabnam, can You give a link for that:”Contrary to what Noam Chomsky is preaching that Israel wants peace but the US imperialism does not allow it – is piece of rubbish which has misled American public. In reality, is Israel that has imprisoned ‘peace’ to finalize its project, to wipe Palestinian off their land.”.}

    I am sure if you had done some research in Google you would have found the perfect line you are looking for. Buy my answer is that Chomsky in majority of his talks or articles presents Israel as a ‘client state’ and the ‘US imperialism’ as major obstacle against a just peace in the Middle East. This is known to those who are seeking the truth not propaganda.
    Chomsky in his latest talk at MIT on Gaza refers to this issue that Israel wants peace, which is against all historical facts for, at least, the past 60 years and more. Elijah Jordan Turner under title “Chomsky Condemns US and Israel for Civilian Deaths in Gaza Strip” dated January 14, 2009, report shows that Chomsky still sees US major role in Gaza holocaust:

    {Chomsky’s harshest criticism was reserved for the unwavering relationship between Israel and the United States, which he frequently termed “outlaw states.” At many points throughout his speech, Chomsky recalled elements of the U.S.-Israel relationship, including occasions on which the United States has used its veto power to block U.N. Security Council resolutions condemnatory of Israel.}
    Noting the hundreds of Palestinian civilian casualties in the ongoing attacks, he criticized the United States for initially declining to back a U.N. ceasefire. He was also unhappy that Barack Obama sympathized with the Israelis. He blamed the United States and Israel for breaking the Hamas-Israel ceasefire agreement established in June, as well as thwarting multiple peace plans that have surfaced over the past decade.
    Still, while Chomsky argued that Israel has preferred expansion to security, he declined to say Israel does not aim to make peace.
    “It’s not that Israel doesn’t want peace”, said Chomsky. “Of course, it wants peace. Everyone wants peace. Even Hitler wanted peace.”}

    Chomsky implies that Israel cannot rejects US orders in killing Palestinians. Everyone knows that this is not true. Israel is following its own INTEREST using American power. According to The Jerusalem Post, Israeli President Shimon Peres spoke to an AIPAC mission in Israel and said that “Israel’s aim [in attacking Gaza] was to provide a strong blow to the people of Gaza so that they would lose their appetite for shooting at Israel.”
    It was not the United States wanting total destruction of Gaza rather it was implementation of Israel’s plan of ‘final solution’ to whip the indigenous population off the Palestine’s map.
    In fact the United States was ready to vote YES on ceasefire but Olmert ordered the illiterate president, George Bush, to change US vote on the resolution at the UN.
    {After intense negotiations with Britain and France, Secretary of State Rice had persuaded the Security Council to agree on a resolution calling for a cease-fire. But Olmert wanted more time to kill Hamas.}
    As Patrick Buchanan writes:
    {He had, said Olmert, whistled up George Bush, interrupted him in the middle of a speech and told him to instruct Condi Rice not to vote for a U.N. resolution Condi herself had written. Bush did as told, said Olmert.}
    Chomsky never tells his audience about Israelis influence on US behavior at the international organizations.

    Jeffrey Blank fort in his article “Damage Control” writes:
    {It is useful to go look at Chomsky’s earlier writings to see how his position has developed. This paragraph from Peace in the Middle East, published in 1974 and repackaged with additional material in 2003, is not dissimilar from the liberal mush he often criticizes:
    {I do not see any way in which Americans can contribute to the active pursuit of peace. That is a matter for the people of the former Palestine themselves. But it is conceivable that Americans might make some contribution to the passive search for peace, by providing channels of communication, by broadening the scope of the discussion and exploring basic issues in ways that are not easily open to those who see their lives as immediately threatened.}

    Chomsky believes that Americans can NOT contribute to the active pursuit of peace. Yet, he cleverly forgets to tell the public about the role of ISRAEL LOBBY and its EXTENSION in the US where exert influence on US policy regarding Middle East and North Africa.

    Instead, he brings what has happened in the past in Americas, killing off the indigenous population, and says Israel’s action is supported by the US elite where have done the same in Americas. In the following video Chomsky explains why US support of Israel as a ‘valuable’ ally is accepted!!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SId8EbfXC8I&feature=related

    On “Democracy Now,” in 2003, Chomsky revealed that”
    {“You have to be really careful reading polls. Israel, in itself, is not a threat, much of a threat at all, but US support for Israel is an enormous threat to world peace, and I presume, that’s what people were answering, however the question was phrased. And if that’s correct, then, major threats to peace in Europe are perceived as US support for Israel which is the regional super power and US actions elsewhere in the world. Now, if that’s the right interpretation, then the polls are reflecting an understanding of phenomena that are real and important and widely understood…” }

    What Chomsky has carved out of this picture is the Israeli lobby (whose role and power Chomsky has made a principle of dismissing) and the Congress which it holds in thrall on one side and the State Department (until Bill Clinton) on the other, with the president in between.

  76. Shabnam said on February 5th, 2009 at 10:32am #

    My last quote is coming from:
    “CHOMSKY’S MISPLACED EMPHASIS” by Blankfort, Dec. 31, 2003

    http://www.theava.com/03/1231-let-chomsky.html

  77. Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA, said on February 5th, 2009 at 11:05am #

    Tree said on February 5th, 2009 at 10:18am #: “who is this joseph anderson and why is anyone paying attention to his comments?”

    I DON’T KNOW, FOR ONE, GO ASK THE PBS NEWSHOUR: THEY INTERVIEWED ME ON NATIONWIDE TV.

    ASK THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE: THEY PUBLISHED A *SPECIAL* COMMENTARY OF MINE ON REPARATIONS — AND *PAID* ME QUITE NICELY FOR IT.

    ASK BLACKCOMMENTATOR: THEY’VE PUBLISHED ME TOO — AND GLOWINGLY COMPLIMENTED AND PRINTED SEVERAL LETTERS TO THE EDITOR OF MINE.

    ASK AFRICAN AMERICAN “MACARTHUR GENIUS AWARD” NOVELIST ISHMAEL REED: HE’S PUBLISHED A NUMBER MY COMMENTARIES IN HIS LITERARY JOURNAL.

    CHECK MY DISSIDENTVOICE ARTICLE.

    ASK DAVEY D COOK, PERHAPS THE CURRENTLY FOREMOST HIPHOP CULTURE POLITICAL AFFAIRS JOURNALIST IN THE COUNTRY: HE’S INTERVIEWED ME SEVERAL TIMES ON HIS RADIO PROGRAM, AS WELL AS PUBLISHED ME IN HIS ONLINE MAGAZINE AT DAVEYD[dot]COM.

    ASK THE BROWN UNIVERSITY DAILY HERALD: THEY PUBLISHED A COMMENTARY OF MINE FROM CLEAR ACROSS THE COUNTRY — AND I NEVER EVEN WENT TO BROWN UNIVERSITY.

    OR THE CAPILANO COURIER — WAY UP IN CANADA — WHO *ASKED* ME FOR A VERSION OF MY SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE COMMENTARY ON REPARATIONS — AND *PAID* ME NICELY FOR IT.

    ASK ANY OTHER NEWSPAPER (OR RADIO STATIONS) WHO’S INTERVIEWED ME OR PUBLISHED MY COMMENTARIES OVER TIME.

    AND WHILE I HAVEN’T BEEN *NEARLY* AS WIDELY PUBLISHED AS MANY OF MY FRIENDS, THESE ARE JUST *SOME* EXAMPLES — AND THAT’S NOT EVEN MY *DAY*JOB.

    ASK ALL MY PROFESSOR FRIENDS FROM BERKELEY TO BRITAIN — ONE LISTED ME ON THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT PAGE OF THEIR FIRST BOOK (NOMINATED FOR A PULITZER PRIZE).

    SO, *WHO* ARE **YOU**, UHHH, *”TREE”* — IS THAT SOME *HIPPIE* NAME OR IS THAT WHAT YOU”RE *HIDING* BEHIND?

    (Speaking of day job, I gotta get back to work. I assume this — and my last email to you RamseFOOL — will hold you until later on?)

  78. Garrett said on February 5th, 2009 at 11:10am #

    I don’t think anyone here is defending Israel or denying the role hatred plays in helping plutocratic governments acquire/accumulate wealth. I know I’m not, that’s for sure. Anyway…

    Take away oil and US Middle Eastern policy changes drastically.

    Take away Israel and US Middle Eastern policy maintains the same objective.

    Period.

    I don’t know how anyone in their right mind can dispute that.

  79. bozh said on February 5th, 2009 at 11:47am #

    much of christian world, and ?ll christians, support tacitly/explicitly ?all israeli crimes and not just uncle sam and aunt golda.
    or we cld say that US/Isr is a bad cop and europe a good cop.
    and the christian world is much stronger than israel; perhaps thousands of time stronger econo-military-diplomatically.

    and it is always the power that prevails and not fairness, prudence, or justice. if that wasn’t so, why is just US a thousand time stronger than IOF?
    it is stronger because it wants it its way! we know that israel doesn’t even have enough water (pals get a little only) let alone uranium, nickel, iron, copper, molibdenum, aluminium, and other minerals.
    nor does it have mines, smelters, steal mills, etc.
    in other words, it is a total dependency for survival on rich ‘jews’ and christian lands and evil empires.
    if this anlyses is largely correct, what is it that one wants chomsky to say? and after he had disclosed that he is for a twostate nonsolution.
    in other words, he’s a minizionist and US/europe/Israel is for either a medi- or maxi zionist state.
    i recognize only palestine but cannot be too angry at chomsky et al for wanting a originally approved state for ‘jews’ only or mostly. thnx

  80. Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA, said on February 5th, 2009 at 12:03pm #

    Garrett said on February 5th, 2009 at 11:10am #:

    Take away oil and US Middle Eastern policy changes drastically.

    Take away Israel and US Middle Eastern policy maintains the same objective.

    Period.

    I don’t know how anyone in their right mind can dispute that.

    BECAUSE MAYBE THEY’VE ACTUALLY **READ** MORE THAN *YOU* HAVE…

    OR, CAN OTHERWISE, *THINK* LOGICALLY…

    INSTEAD OF, IN LIEU OF *CRITICAL THINKING*, YOUR REPEATING YOUR SIMPLE-MINDED SLOGANS, AD NAUSEUM, OVER AND OVER AGAIN, WHY DON’T YOU START WITH SOME OF THE ARTICLES RECOMMENDED ON THIS PAGE?

    I *COULD* JUST TELL YOU WHY “ANYONE IN THEIR *RIGHT* MIND *CAN* DISPUTE THAT”…

    BUT I REFUSE TO ALWAYS SPOONFEED PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO NEVER WANT TO DO ANY CRITICAL READING YOURSELVES.

    AND I DON’T WANT MY TIME SUCKED UP AND WASTED IN SOME IDIOTIC DEBATE WITH SOMEONE WHO ALWAYS WANTS TO FALLACIOUSLY SPOUT OFF — BECAUSE THAT’S *EASIER* FOR PEOPLE LIKE YOU (AND “THE THREE STOOGES” ABOVE) — BUT REFUSES TO *READ* ANYTHING — EVEN WHEN ITS PRESENTED TO THEM — THAT *CHALLENGES* WHAT THEY/YOU SPOUT OFF.

    (I couldn’t resist. I got tired to reading his simple-minded slogans one too many times.)

  81. Garrett said on February 5th, 2009 at 12:05pm #

    “Shabnam (February 4th, 2009 at 8:18pm) HAD TO GO GET THE *ACTUAL* QUOTE.”

    Shabnam interpreted the quote differently than I did. And perhaps his interpretation is correct. I didn’t major in Chomskyology. I don’t know why some are obsessing over a single individual.

    Forget, if you can, about Chomsky for a moment. And answer a simple question: What would have more impact on US Middle Eastern policy, the absense of Israel or the absense of oil?

  82. Garrett said on February 5th, 2009 at 12:10pm #

    “SIMPLE-MINDED”

    Read your 10:38 AM comment and then get back to me.

  83. Danny Ray said on February 5th, 2009 at 12:26pm #

    Dear Mr. Anderson.
    Having just completed a Lexus Nexus Search with your name for a by-line I regret to inform you that the search came up negative with the exception of an extremely poorly worded letter to the editor. Yep that it nothing, Nada, Not Jack, none and I mean none.

    So where are all these masterpieces, They can’t be still in your head cause you have already sufficiently proven that there’s nothing up there.

    As much as I love to hear my brothers play the dozens I must point out that Tree, Ramsfall, Shabnam and many of the others have clearer thought processes while wiping their asses than you will on the best day of your life.

    .

  84. Danny Ray said on February 5th, 2009 at 12:27pm #

    BTW, Joe, old man. I am a cracker. Just thought I would throw you a bone!!

  85. Tree said on February 5th, 2009 at 12:27pm #

    Joseph Anderson, what exactly is your point? Clearly you’re incredibly insecure and so you feel the need to brag about yourself. You’re posted on Dissident Voice? So what, so am I.
    You’ve been on television? Big whoop. You and people like Nancy Grace and Bill O’Reilly have three things in common now. (the others being you’re both obnoxious and have nothing worthwhile to add to the dialogue)

  86. Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA, said on February 5th, 2009 at 12:30pm #

    Suthiano said on February 5th, 2009 at 11:17am #:

    oooh,, oohh jeez, looks like Joseph’s power comes from his penis…

    IS IT *THAT* OBVIOUS!?

    (And, btw, do you know what a “Mandingo” is??? Because I once new a white person who didn’t know what a “gat” is? And you both sound like you think it’s the same thing. And it’s *not* what *either* of you apparently think/thought it is.)

    Granted that I agree with the analysis of Chomsky you have presented

    WELL, THEN, IT LOOKS LIKE *YOU* TOOK ME SERIOUSLY.

    THAT’S THE INTELLECTUAL *SUBSTANCE* — AND *THAT’S* ALL THAT’S REALLY IMPORTANT.

    THEN THE REST IS JUST ME HAVING *FFUNN* WITH *FFOOLLS* — WHO CAN’T STAND AN UPPITY, INTELLIGENT BLACK PERSON WHO KNOWS MORE — EVEN ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE — THAN *THEY* DO — AND, YES, PROVES THEM *WRONG* — WHO CAME AFTER *ME* FIRST!

    (Now, no one talk to me: I gotta concentrate on work — my day job! Until *later*…)

  87. Deadbeat said on February 5th, 2009 at 2:16pm #

    bozh writes …

    in other words, he’s a minizionist and US/europe/Israel is for either a medi- or maxi zionist state. i recognize only palestine but cannot be too angry at chomsky et al for wanting a originally approved state for ‘jews’ only or mostly. thnx

    And herein lies the problem. bozh take of “grading” the level of racist attitudes of someone who professes to be on the “Left” who professes to be an “anarchist” makes a mockery of Left-wing principles. The fact is there should be no tolerance period. But more importantly what bozh does like Garrett is to dilute the influence that Chomsky has on the Left. His influence is nothing to dismiss.

    Because the range of political perspectives are so constricted most American are indoctrinated that ability to think critically and their political are stunted. The range of political perspectives are constrained to “liberal” and “conservative” all within the framework of Capitalism, Imperialism and Zionism.

    For many Americans, Chomsky may be the first time there have heard anyone make comments critical of U.S. Imperialism and Capitalism and even against Israel. Because of this, Chomsky has built himself a following. The beauty of this “deception of the rulers” is that it is assumed that Chomsky is a “radical” because when compared to “mainstream” opinion Chomsky clearly falls out of their boundary. However when compared to LEFTIST PRINCIPALS of JUSTICE, Chomsky is in fact REACTIONARY. In other words Chomsky POSES as a leftist and CONSTRAINS activists who are unwilling to think critically by applying the precepts of justice to their analysis. These activist find it much easier to quote Chomsky and more COMFORTABLE too stay within their Chomskyesque constraints and to follow the “leader” rather than to CHALLENGE and to CHANGE it.

    The “War for Oil” canard is the clearest example of this. Chomsky and his like minded minions has been for DECADES thrown this up as the raison d’etre for all events in the Middle East. And in the 1950’s this may have been the case with the overthrow of

  88. Max Shields said on February 5th, 2009 at 2:31pm #

    That seems to be your problem, Deadbeat, pretending. If Chomsky is pretending to be a “leftist” what are you pretending to be?

    Hiding behind Chomsky to make your case is one big CANARD. Oil is real. The Middle East is real. The oil in that region is real. US involvement with setting up the Saudi regime is real. That it and other geo-strategic moves, pre-dating the creationg of Israel regarding oil and the ME is real.

    So, “war for oil”? It’s a phrase you can beat up on all you want, but facts are stubborn things.

  89. Max Shields said on February 5th, 2009 at 2:32pm #

    By the way US dependency on ME oil has never been greater than it is NOW. Iraq has perhaps the largest oil reserves – owing in large part to the embargo followed by the invasion/occupation.

  90. Deadbeat said on February 5th, 2009 at 2:33pm #

    bozh writes …

    in other words, he’s a minizionist and US/europe/Israel is for either a medi- or maxi zionist state. i recognize only palestine but cannot be too angry at chomsky et al for wanting a originally approved state for ‘jews’ only or mostly. thnx

    And herein lies the problem. bozh take of “grading” the level of racist attitudes of someone who professes to be on the “Left” who professes to be an “anarchist” makes a mockery of Left-wing principles. The fact is there should be no tolerance period. But more importantly what bozh does like Garrett is to dilute the influence that Chomsky has on the Left. His influence is nothing to dismiss.

    Because the range of political perspectives are so constricted most American are indoctrinated that ability to think critically and their political are stunted. The range of political perspectives are constrained to “liberal” and “conservative” all within the framework of Capitalism, Imperialism and Zionism.

    For many Americans, Chomsky may be the first time there have heard anyone make comments critical of U.S. Imperialism and Capitalism and even against Israel. Because of this, Chomsky has built himself a following. The beauty of this “deception of the rulers” is that it is assumed that Chomsky is a “radical” because when compared to “mainstream” opinion Chomsky clearly falls out of their boundary. However when compared to LEFTIST PRINCIPALS of JUSTICE, Chomsky is in fact REACTIONARY. In other words Chomsky POSES as a leftist and CONSTRAINS activists who are unwilling to think critically by applying the precepts of justice to their analysis. These activist find it much easier to quote Chomsky and more COMFORTABLE too stay within their Chomskyesque constraints and to follow the “leader” rather than to CHALLENGE and to CHANGE it.

    The “War for Oil” canard is the clearest example of this. Chomsky and his like minded minions has been for DECADES thrown this up as the raison d’etre for all events in the Middle East. And in the 1950’s this may have been the case with the overthrow of Mossedec but that was NOT true with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003. For example as John Anderson sites you have folks like Greg Palest, Antonia Juhasz, Naomi Klein, and other who have become media “stars” on the Left while at the same time misinformation and disinformation of activists about the influence of Zionism upon U.S. policy. Their silence, dismissals, obfuscations and outright condescention of anyone who challenges their rhetoric has had the effect of stunting any real confrontation of Zionism having the awful consequences of allowing Zionism to flourish. Therefore what these “posers” say they want — a movement — the consequences of their actions, words, statements and writing is the EXACT OPPOSITE — no movement only confusion, internal bickering and disruption of the Left.

    When you think about it. This “Deception of the Rulers” on the Left is sheer genius.

    Clearly someone of Chomsky acumen could

  91. Ramsefall said on February 5th, 2009 at 2:34pm #

    Live and learn, that about sums it up, Tree.

    Best to you.

  92. Deadbeat said on February 5th, 2009 at 2:57pm #

    Max says …

    By the way US dependency on ME oil has never been greater than it is NOW. Iraq has perhaps the largest oil reserves – owing in large part to the embargo followed by the invasion/occupation.

    Max is wrong as usual. The U.S. receives the bulk of its oil from Canada and Venezuela and the U.S. has no intention of invading either country. In fact Chavaz asserted that he has the LARGEST oil reserves in the world. Also it is COUNTERPRODUCTIVE for the U.S. to attack Iran in order obtain oil at an economical price. Just look at Iraq if you want a more recent example.

    This is 2008 not 1888 where conquest was more economical. In this highly integrated global economy the American oil companies want STABILITY to TRADE not conflict. In fact American oil companies lobbied to end the Middle East embargoes. Therefore your comments has no basis for the U.S. wanting to war with Iran for oil. Once that excuse is eliminated you are left with no other reason than Zionism.

    Unfortunately Max you are a POSER — posing as a “Leftist” but your goal here on DV is MISDIRECTION and MISINFORMATION. Your agenda is confusion and disruption and it is confusion and disruption that STUNTS solidarity and weakens any hopes for movements. Movements won’t occur because the people needed to have such a movement can easily see and detect mendacity from the Left.

    Movements are not some generic concept it is about PROTECTION through TRUST of the participants and constituents. It is clear that the Left cannot be trusted because it has been so thoroughly corrupted by phony intellectuals who talk a good game and has successfully misinformed the public.

  93. bozh said on February 5th, 2009 at 3:02pm #

    deadbeat,
    i did not think of having graded theft of land. so, indeed i am grading chomsky’s racism; racism or supremacism being a moorings for a piracy (on land).
    thnx for pointing that out to me. about chomsky being a leftist or ideally/partly socialistic, i wld have to reread his books that i bought yrs ago.
    i think that i have some ten books by him or him/herman. but since i am busy at DV and am now studying history of kurds i do not have time to reread his books to see what he is really for.

    but offhand, i don’t remember him saying that he is for free higher education. i think he is for health care. he does expose media lies as well. he’s for less warfare, but d o not recall saying that he opposes warfare on a princple such as that no country has the right to attack another under no known circumstances.
    but he may have stated the principle arraying it in differernt words. i really don’t know.
    i invite the readers to enlighten us what he is for also on social level; interpersonal level and how each stratum of society treats ever other.
    chomsky is also for more democratization. thnx

  94. Max Shields said on February 5th, 2009 at 3:46pm #

    Deadbeat, the world receives the bulk of its oil from the ME. This is getting very tiresome. The US policy is not simply to have all the world’s oil come to the US, but to ensure that the US controls the oil.

    The arrangement in the ME with the oligarchies is that all oil be traded in US dollars!! Do you know what that means, DB? That means that every time ANYONE buys oil the US gets a piece of the action!!!

    The need for energy, specifically oil is so great that no single source is sufficient. Nor is there an alternative that can sustain the American system and life style.

    This has nothing to do with 1888 or 2009, this has to do with a trajectory that has grown expotentially, shutting perpendicular around 1974. The dependency is GREATER not less. Alternatives are worthless unless we chuck this economic system of endless growth entirely!!!

  95. Max Shields said on February 5th, 2009 at 3:47pm #

    sic “shooting perpendicular”

  96. Deadbeat said on February 5th, 2009 at 3:56pm #

    Max the U.S. would have had more access to the worlds oil by negotiating with the oil producing states. You failed to read that the oil companies LOSS access to ME oil through these military actions. They have gain NOTHING. Therefore the premise of your argument is INCORRECT. All you are doing Max is repeating the BIG LIE hoping to gain a following by repeating the BIG LIE because people have been so misinformed. You are engaging in the very Chomskyesque technique of misinformation.

    Again Max you don’t have to read Petras to get access to this information. You can read the mainstream Economist magazine to confirm the position of the American oil companies disdain for wars in the Middle East. These wars especially the two most recent wars has curtailed their ability to obtain access and American firms has LOST contracts and access to their foreign counterparts.

    Zionism is impetus behind U.S. involvement in the Middle East and your agenda of misinformation only aids and abets the “plutocracy”.

  97. Deadbeat said on February 5th, 2009 at 4:10pm #

    Ramsefall writes…

    Check this link to clear up your fuzziness
    http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

    Thanks for the link Ramesfall because IT confirms and support what I wrote about Canada and Venezuela being the U.S. larger supplier of her oil. In fact the U.S. gets most of her oil from the Americas. What you’ve done Ramefall is supply data that contradicts Max’s assertion that the U.S. is in the Middle East for Oil.

    CANADA 2,028 2,066 1,922 1,925 1,897
    SAUDI ARABIA 1,487 1,435 1,517 1,530 1,426
    MEXICO 1,296 1,256 1,191 1,484 1,425
    VENEZUELA 1,080 1,027 1,042 1,227 1,139
    NIGERIA 775 935 928 1,245 1,072
    IRAQ 476 577 636 508 494
    ANGOLA 450 527 499 428 504
    ALGERIA 381 305 318 184 452
    KUWAIT 292 235 207 154 176
    BRAZIL 280 345 233 78 165
    ECUADOR 222 194 210 154 198
    COLOMBIA 160 163 181 197 139
    RUSSIA 152 111 119 81 120
    EQUATORIAL GUINEA 124 114 75 51 54
    UNITED KINGDOM 122 181 78 42 102

  98. DanE said on February 5th, 2009 at 4:16pm #

    Thank you Deadbeat for exposing these sneaky Zio-apologists for the 5th Column agents they are. It’s a shame that this site is infested with these fulltime trolls who seem to have nothing to do but churn out confusion.

    These characters would have the unsuspecting reader believe that people like Petras, Blankfort, Brenner know nothing about anything but Zionism, when in fact they and others have long track records of writing and acting against the capitalist-imperialist system going back before Israel and its US 5th Column attained more than a fraction of their current political and ideological hegemony.

    That “Big Oil” had everything to do with establishing the House of Saud as a willing compradore regime back in the twenties & thirties does not prove that Bush & Co’s invasion of Iraq was prompted by the “petroleum lobby”; that claim is simply a non sequitur. Proximity in time or geography does not prove causality. Actually, the Saudi regime and the Zionist State have been in cahoots for decades, ditto Mubarak & the other Arab “Oil States”. They all put out piles of rhetoric & posturing, but when push comes to shove Izzy & the ZPC get what they want.
    The reality is that denunciations of Big Oil are regular fare on network TV, and in Democrat Pty discourse. Antonia Juhacz was just allotted an hour and a half on C-Span — but you will never see James Petras or Grant Smith on C-Span. You won’t even see them, (or Jeff Blankfort, or Kathy Christison, or Lenni Brenner on Democracy Now. )

    Interestingly, among those who’ve been allotted generous coverage on C-Span is Brian Becker of the “ANSWER” Coalition and the “Party of Socialist Liberation”. Even more interesting is that the ANSWER-member Free Palestine Alliance agrees with the PSL line, which echoes Chomsky. In fact ANSWER-aligned groups actively promote Juhacz as the leading expert on the causes of the Iraq war.

    Well I gotta get out of here & do some chores. So let me just mention some required reading on these topics: Bill Eveland’s Ropes of Sand; Brenner’s “The Iron Wall: Revisionist Zionism from Jabotinsky to Shamir”; also his “Jews in America Today”. Blankfort’s article on Jews in the US Media (which is really redundant, if you just watch TV & movie credits with out prior assumptions). Walt/Mearsheimer’s book, M is better than Walt it turns out; Petras’ last three books, check on Amazon.

    Floyd Hunter’s classic “Community Power Structure” is very instructive re how power works in any context. Barry Weisberg did a lot of good writing on the Oil industry at the time of the 70’s Oil Crisis. Re the California Energy Crisis, look into Christian Poindexter and Constellation Energy.

    OK, thanks again DB, I’m aot!

  99. Deadbeat said on February 5th, 2009 at 4:30pm #

    Joseph Anderson writes…

    SO, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN I POLITELY CHALLENGED ANTONIA JUHASZ WHAT WAS HER *PROOF* OR DIRECT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT *OIL* WAS THE ONLY REASON FOR EITHER U.S. WARS IN IRAQ

    –AND THAT THE U.S. WAS GOING TO CONTROL THE WORLD THROUGH CONTROLLING THE WORLD’S OIL, AND BY THAT THE WORLD

    –I POINTED OUT THAT THE U.S. CAN’T (OR CAN BARELY) EVEN CONTROL *IRAQ* AND *AFGHANISTAN* (A 3RD AND A *4TH* WORLD COUNTRY), LET ALONE *THE WORRRLD*

    –LET ALONE HER CLAIM THAT *OIL* WAS THE ONLY REASON FOR ANY ATTACK ON IRAN

    –THE LATTER OF WHICH I PUBLICLY POINTED OUT THAT *EVEN* HER SENIOR COLLEAGE, PHYLLIS BENNIS, AT THE INSTITUTE FOR POLICY STUDIES IN WASHINGTON, D.C., DISAGREED WITH *THAT*

    –(even PHYLLIS BENNIS said that the ONLY people really pushing for a military attack on Iran was _THE *ISRAEL* LOBBY_ and _*ISRAEL*_ and the *ZIONIST NEOCONS* in the Bush administration!: she couldn’t even cover up for *that*)

    That is the point that there is NO documentary evidence that shows that the U.S. invaded Iraq and threatens Iran for solely on the basis of wanting to control oil in the Middle East. However there is documentary evidence that the American oil companies DID NOT want an invasion of Iraq and wants the U.S. NOT to invade Iran. There is evidence that the oil firms wanted an end to the embargoes. And Joseph is right about Phyllis Bennis that even she cannot cover up the influence of Zionism upon U.S. foreign policy. Yet there are many on the Left that still spout the “war for oil” canard. Look at how the many writers on the Left embraced Alan Greenspan of all people assertion that the war in Iraq was for oil. Amy Goodman, Naomi Klein, Antonia Juhasz saw Greenspan assertion as confirmation. Why would the “Left” embrace the words of the man who help to create the current economic crisis with all of his lies when it comes to foreign policies and who himself is an ardent Zionist. This clearly exemplifies and illustrates the MENDACITY of the Left and why the Left is in such disarray.

    This is why the U.S. now has the Zionist lackey Barack Obama as President. It is because the Left aids and abets the expansion and flourishing of Zionism in the U.S. especially in 2003 and 2004 by dismantling the anti-war movement. The Left acted as gate keepers to prevent the public from considering Zionism’s influence and by demobilizing the anti-war movement created the political vacuum that enabled Barack Obama.

    There are huge consequences by the Left giving Zionism a free pass and that consequences KILLS people and disrupt lives in the U.S. and abroad.

  100. Max Shields said on February 5th, 2009 at 4:32pm #

    Deadbeat, your lost in the woods and can’t see the forest.

    I never said the Oil companies didn’t lose on the invasion. Who is saying that?

    You see your argument is based on the premise that if the Big Oil companies lose ground on an invasion that the invasion had nothing to do with oil. That’s faulty logic and a very weak argument.

    But it does seem to be the one that a few of you are bantering on and on and on (I wish DanE would keep his posts cogent. He throws everyone into the discussion hoping something sticks.)

    Again, you seem to miss my point because you’re so stuck with your little narrative.

    I don’t have an “agenda”. You do.

  101. Deadbeat said on February 5th, 2009 at 4:51pm #

    Max lies …

    Again, you seem to miss my point because you’re so stuck with your little narrative.

    Max don’t let go and pull out all of your arguments since you been here on DV. Your basic premise has been to DENY that Zionism has been a strong influence on U.S. foreign policy. Your premise has been that OIL is the main raison for the U.S. being in the Middle East.

    At first the issue was that the Left wanted to deny that Zionism could possibly influence the mighty U.S. The take was that Zionism meant “Israel”. Your position on DV was that “tiny” Israel could not possibly influence the “mighty” U.S. You are among those here on DV who leads the charge of denying Zionism influence. What you did was essentially used a rhetorical strawman that due to Israel geographic size that it could not possibly influence the foreign policy of the U.S. The fallacy is that Olmart himself gloat at how even he can “order” the President of the U.S.

    Next you have asserted that the focus is too much on Zionism and not enough of “plutocracy”. You and bozh have been a tag team on that rhetorical argument. However what you’ve failed to see AT BEST is that your rhetoric is design to diminish the influence of Zionism on the very plutocracy that you “profess” to challenge. Zionism is an IDEOLOGY it is not bounded by boarders. In order for Zionism to flourish it has to go unchallenged and you sir are aiding and abetting in allowing Zionism to go unchallenged.

    Zionism has integrated itself within the U.S. political economy meaning that challenging Zionism (likewise racism) is CHALLENGING the plutocracy.

    As I have stated the Civil Right movement which challenged Jim Crow racism led to ALL different kinds of movements that essentially challenged Capitalism (read plutocracy). Even King before he was assassinated marched with sanitation workers and was organizing a poor people convention. He moved from being a “race” leader to a leader against capitalism. I recommend reading his “Breaking the Silence” speech.

    Your agenda Max IS SILENCE. To silence any challenge to Zionism and thus any challenge to the plutocracy. It is really shameful Max that the Left is infested with posers like you. Your rhetoric is doing much more damage than anything coming from the Right.

  102. Max Shields said on February 5th, 2009 at 5:34pm #

    DB, you’re arguments against anything I’ve “posted” are pretty much fiction. I’m NOT Chomsky. So get off of that. Second, I’m not saying Zionism has had it’s hand in US foreign policy. So, get off of that. Nor am I claiming AIPAC is not a powerful lobby. So drop that argument against me as well.

    Now, what I am saying is that there is a confluence and that the US Imperial Empire embraces the ideology of agression and intervention and regional hegemony, as do the Zionists as manifested in Israel.

    But that confluence does not deny the role of oil. Why else would so much be sent and lost? (Your answer is Zionism and I say such a “ism” only gets you a place at the table.)

    The US has a history of failed invasions and occupations in places far removed from the Middle East.

  103. bozh said on February 5th, 2009 at 5:49pm #

    deadbeat,
    one can keep calling a land theft “zionism”, another theft russism, another serbianism, still another americanism,etc., but more accurate/adequate label is “stealing land” while murdering people.

    i have never said that i know to what degree (if any?) ashkenazim, the masterfolk of real jews, influence american foreign policy.

    in case by case, zionist stance changes. free kosovo was not welcomed by israel. or am i wrong?
    ashekenazic volk and goyim were solidly anticroat until ’94 in US and ’95 in canada.
    in ’95 a volte face occured against serb land theft. so it does seem that at least in some conflicts zionist are either lukewarmly with US or even loudly against it.
    has israel recognized kosovo? maybe by now? israelis are not happy US arming s.arabia and some israelis or zionists are not happy with that.
    has there been a documented case when a presidential order had been countermanded by ‘zionists’ ? how about more than one? how about a dozen+. gives us please smoking gun evidence!
    Israel is not a big (if any?) strategic value to Europe/US soyuz. both afgh’n and iraq prove that.
    israel is used solely for bombing syrian, iraqi sites that may be manufacturing wmd. nato cld do it but prefers israel do that.
    and israel gets well paid for that. thnx

  104. Garrett said on February 5th, 2009 at 5:52pm #

    DB wrote, “What you’ve done Ramefall is supply data that contradicts Max’s assertion that the U.S. is in the Middle East for Oil.”

    You keep asserting that the assertion is that The Empire’s goal is to get oil from the Middle East. But it isn’t. The goal is to *control* the oil.

    DB later wrote, “Even King before he was assassinated marched with sanitation workers and was organizing a poor people convention.”

    Precisely. Dr. King recognized that racism was a mean to an end, and that the end/objective was the accumulation of wealth by any means necessary.

  105. bozh said on February 5th, 2009 at 6:01pm #

    deadbeat,
    about world plutocracy.
    it seems to me that, that ?all of it is solidly for ‘zionism’. it is united like never before against pals and working class.
    but being vastly stronger, do much more damage to workers and weak peoples.
    israel may have slain, let’s say, 500,000 pals over a century; US over the same span may have been directly responsible for 10mn deaths.
    and i’m not counting red people.
    germany, france, russia, japan, UK, italy have slain as many as 50mn people.
    we stop world plutocrats; plutos stop israel. that’s how i see it. thnx

  106. Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA, said on February 5th, 2009 at 6:39pm #

    Furthermore, Deadbeat — and I admire your patience, articulateness and eloquence with them FFOOLLS (and how many of them are just *Zionist propagandists* anyway, just *recycling*, just like Chomsky, their specious propaganda arguments that have been *repeatedly* defeated, and *just pretending to ignore* the defeating points you make) — *never* in all of U.S. history, has the U.S. *ever* militarily invaded and occupied a Middle Eastern oil country for the purpose of gaining control of the oil! — let alone for the purpose of installing “a democracy”.

    You ever notice how the U.S. let’s any of it 3rd World closest *allies* — like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan and Egypt and, before, Iran, to name just a few of the *Mideast* ones alone — be *dictatorships*, but then the U.S. demands that all its 3rd World *enemies/adversaries* be “democracies”, or else the U.S. might militarily attack.

    All of the other Middle Eastern oil countries have *NATIONALIZED* their oil — and ALL of the Western oil corporations –not only the American oil corporations — work through that. It’s been that way for a long time. Mideast oil states aren’t just going to let the West rip them off like the West did before the 1960’s/1970’s or so.

    So, WHY would the U.S. oil corporations — especially since Daddy Bush was an BIG OIL man and he had plenty of corporate BIG OIL friends and *he* didn’t go to Baghdad and try to take the whole country for it oil sittin’ right there(!!) — want to do something that none of them have EVER done before?

    BECAUSE THE IDEA WAS SO *CRAZY* THAT ONLY AN *IDIOT* IN THE PRESIDENCY — WHO WAS BEING PUSHED BY A BUNCH OF CRAZY *ZIONIST* NEOCONS AND THE *ISRAEL-FIRST* LOBBY — WOULD DO IT!

    Even all the major African oil countries (like Nigeria, where, if I’m correrct, the U.S. actually gets most of its oil from a single country) have all nationalized their oil.

    Venezuela –the biggest oil producer in Latin America — has.

    Mexico has.

    In fact, I don’t know of any major oil non-Western oil country that *hasn’t* nationalized its oil.

    And I don’t know of *any* oil country in the world that the U.S. has militarily invaded and occupied to gain control of its oil.

    We just send in the CIA, pay off the right people (traitors to the people, the comprador elite), provide technical intelligence, support/finance a coup, and try to guarantee that we’ll keep that regime in power, usually by selling them arms to maintain their dictatorial police state (like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, for a long time Iran, and now Egypt — which has no export oil to speak of, but it does have at least 12 times the Jewish population of Israel, and Egypt was the only country that came the very closest to defeating Israel in 1973, and gave Israel a *really badly* bloody nose, when Egypt was trying to get back it’s stolen land from Israel in 1967, yet another pretextual war *Israel* started ), and *then* make clear — at least with the oil states — that the U.S. will use its military to defend it. As Zbigniev Brzezinski said, “The days of direct, occupational colonialism are over.”

    As someone once pointed out, oil corporations just want to pump, *process* the oil and *sell* it. They can make *plenty* of money doing that (as Exxon’s gargantuan profits show). They don’t want to have to or necessarily *own* the oild fields, if it’s going to bring about nothing but national resentment and gross instability.

    And the U.S. has never needed an ‘Israel’ — stealing the land of generations upon generations of millions upon millions of native inhabitants, regularly commiting mass wanton human rights violations and grinding mass civilian atrocities, with millions more native people driven out of that land, IN THE 20TH & 21ST CENTURIES’ LONGEST CONTINUOUS HUMAN RIGHTS CATASTROPHE, to *continuously* make way for an almost entirely *foreign* population from thousands of miles away, from even entirely other continents at that, claiming that “God” sent them — in order to to do that!

    As the British used to say, “You can’t build a stable base on top of a wasp’s [I'm sure they intended no pun] nest.” Which is also why the British finally left Israel for the Americans.

    In fact, the only other Mideast country that the U.S. has ever militarily attacked and invaded and tried to occupy (that I can think of) is *Lebanon* — which *has no* oil — and the U.S. was eventually (and summarily) driven out!

    Of course, *after*, and as long as, the U.S. went into Iraq, *of course* the U.S. was going to try to go take the oil.

    And of course, THOSE CRR-RRAZY ZIONIST NEOCONS — WHAT DID *THEY* CARE: ALMOST 5,000, OR MORE, *ISRAELI* SOLDIERS HAVEN’T DIED IN IRAQ — WITH TENS OF THOUSANDS OF SOLDIERS SERIOUSLY WOUNDED, WOUNDED FOR LIFE, MAIMED OR CRIPPLED —MAYBE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF FAMILY MEMBERS WHO SUFFER TOO AS A RESULT — AND IT WASN’T *ISRAEL’S* TREASURE, TO THE TUNE OF TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS, BEING SPENT ON THE WAR — WITH BILIONS, MAYBE TRILLIONS, OF DOLLARS *YET* JUST TO GO TO TAKING CARE OF MENTALLY/PYSICALLY CRIPPLED SOLDIERS FOR LIFE WITH TECHNOLOGY-INTENSIVE INJURIES) *thought* that confiscated oil would pay for all this — because, of course, they relied on all the handpicked sources that said that the Iraqis would throw roses at our feet and the whole thing would last a month or few.

    You know, Zionists will try to take anything they can get their hands on: whatever they can steal from Palestine, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria — confiscate BILLIONS of our tax dollars EVERY YEAR (even in our national economic crisis!), confiscate our academic freedom of expression, and even confiscate our university tenure process!

    (Now, I haven’t recall what’s happened with all the negotiations, but I don’t think things have worked out quite the way the U.S. wanted with the oil. Deadbeat, has Iraq re-nationalized its oil? Because I don’t think any Iraqi leader could ever stay in power that gives Iraq’s oil away to the U.S.)

    Well, I wish I had the time, or patience, to write more — like, I’m sure you realize that the U.S. *baited* Saddam into attacking Kuwait, for the *real* purposes of destroying his heavy weapons (you know, all the stuff the U.S. *sold* him) and military command & infra-structure, since he was no longer needed by the U.S. to kill (how many millions of?) other brown people in next door Iran, while still *purposely* leaving him, ‘Hitler, in power — but I’m gonna leave *some* meat on the bone!

  107. Max Shields said on February 5th, 2009 at 6:43pm #

    The assertions repeated oft by DB reduces the whole world to a microcosm which misses the major forces. It reduces the world to a slice of time and wraps the world’s woes in a tiny lttle package.

    The principles driving organizational structure like empire are large in scale, and span many decades and centuries.

    Kirkpatrick Sale in a Counterpunch piece titled: Obama’s Lincoln Thing; gets it right. I would place the beginning of US empire to its inceptions, but it took final form as a result of Lincoln’s administration and the murderous Civil War. And why was that war fought? To preserve the “union”. And what is that union? That Union consisted of a great imperial expansion that swept ultimately across over 3000 miles of land mass. Land inhabited by indigenous peoples, and sovereign states.

    But the preservation of the Union was not a constitutional mandate. But there is a clear intention regarding the governance of the United States. It has always been an empire ruled since the 19th Century by the new imperial elite – Corporations. No where is there a Zionist in this historical narrative. No where is there a particular need for “oil”, but there is a need for energy (slaves and animals) and later steam, coal, trees and then came oil. And with oil massive industry came pouring forth. And the empire grew and grew to be the largest empire of all written history.

    And so it is today. Empires end primarily because the energy that brought them to great heights is lost. But the struggle for that energy continues. And so it is today.

    Israel, as I’ve said, is a dispicable state. But in the grand scheme they are a very minor player. In fact, they are smaller than a gnat in the grand scheme. They are but a convenient plaything.

    You see, DB, the real rulers are not the money lenders or the MSM mouthpieces. The real rulers are quiet little men who run massive empires with massive stakes and sums and power. Jews have never been rulers. Not like that anyway. Some have taken to run this little apartheid hateful state with an arsenal like India and a GDP like a relatively poor EU nation-state. It’s a bastard state. Dispicable, but it is nothing compared to the US Imperial Empire.

  108. Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA, said on February 5th, 2009 at 6:53pm #

    ‘Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA said on February 5th, 2009 at 5:10pm #:

    WHY DO I WRITE THIS PILE OF CRAP’

    ____________________________________________________________________

    YOU *SEE*?: I *TOLD* YOU THAT THOSE ZIONISTS POSE AN WHOMEVER THEY WANT!

    I *THOUGHT* THAT THE “TREE/TWIG” ‘ENTRANCE’ WAS RATHER *LATE* — AND *SUDDEN*– AND *SUSPICIOUS*.

    AND I WAS SUSPICIOUS OF SOME OF THOSE OTHER NAMES TOO.

    WHO KNOWS IF “THE THREE/FOUR/FIVE STOOGES” AREN’T REALLY ALL THE *SAME* ZIONUT!

    THIS IS THE KIND OF STUFF THEY DO WHEN THEY ARE CONSTANTLY PROVEN *WRONG* AND THUS FEEL BACKED INTO A CORNER.

    THIS IS THE KIND OF STUFF THAT THEY DID AGAINST CYNTHIA MCKKINEY — ONLY USING THEIR ZIONIST OCCUPIED *MAJOR* MEDIA.

    THIS IS ALSO HOW *THE ISRAEL LOBBY* — AND ESPECIALLY THE *ADL* (IRONICALLY, AND ORWELLIANLY-NAMED, THE SO-CALLED “ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE”) BEHAVES.

    THIS IS WHAT ZIONISTS DO AT ANY OTHER PUBLIC PROGRESSIVE WEBSITE WHERE ISRAEL IS DEBATED, WHEN THEY ARE CONSTANTLY PROVEN WRONG AND FEEL PUSHED INTO A CORNER — ESPECIALLY AT THE AMERICAN INDYMEDIA SITES.

    THANKS FOR DEMONSTRATING MY POINT, *ZIONUTS*!

    -

  109. Max Shields said on February 5th, 2009 at 6:55pm #

    One correction – I don’t mean to make an exact comparison between India’s general arsenal and Israel. For sure the latter has been provided with a steady supply from it’s parent state, but the general nuclear capaibility is roughly the same.

  110. Ramsefall said on February 5th, 2009 at 9:02pm #

    DB,

    – “What you’ve done Ramefall is supply data that contradicts Max’s assertion that the U.S. is in the Middle East for Oil.”

    From your perspective it naturally seems that way, I saw that one coming. However, I merely supplied data that contradicts what you claimed about Canada and Venezuela being the bulk suppliers, when indeed more oil is obtained from Saudi Arabia and Mexico, nearly 3x what the US gets from Venezuela. You are correct that the US imports predominately from America — the continent.

    Nonetheless, as for the assertion of Max and et al, qu’est-ce que c’est ta raison d’etre pour les Etats-Unis having anticipated their entry into the ME since prior to the CIA overthrow of Mossagadegh in Iran in 1953? It was purely oil interest, and any meddling in the region has been since.

    Regardless of how much oil the US presently consumes domestically from the ME at roughly 10%, the long term plan is far greater in scope. You gotta start thinking long term and with a sense of historic relativity.

    US support of Israel was the move that got US oil corps’ foot in the door to the region which post WWII speculators knew was, is and will be so vitally important — the Middle East. It boils down to controlling the flow of their precious life blood that keeps their military running in the ME, and their capitalist system of exploitation afloat. It’s natural that they can’t be importing extraordinary quantities of oil from Iraq, that would be too suspicious.

    Peering even further, how much oil do you think Amerika’s military machine has consumed while in the ME during the past 6 years? That sizable quantity is coming straight from the fields in Iraq, to the refineries and into their planes, tanks, Humvees, etc. And while it’s not categorized as an import, technically it is since it’s being used by the US.

    The US oil strategy stretches further down the road than you dare to contemplate.

  111. Deadbeat said on February 5th, 2009 at 10:26pm #

    Ramesfall writes…

    From your perspective it naturally seems that way, I saw that one coming. However, I merely supplied data that contradicts what you claimed about Canada and Venezuela being the bulk suppliers, when indeed more oil is obtained from Saudi Arabia and Mexico, nearly 3x what the US gets from Venezuela. You are correct that the US imports predominately from America — the continent.

    You need to look on the MAP Ramesfall, since when is Mexico part of the Middle East?

    The fact of the matter from the information YOU supply shows that the U.S. is LESS dependent upon Middle Eastern oil than oil from the Americas. Based on your information the U.S. should be preparing for an invasion of the Americas rather than expanding the majority of their military on the Middle East.

    The US oil strategy stretches further down the road than you dare to contemplate

    That is a assertion without any facts supplied. I guess you must have some inside information that you care not to share here. What I do know as a fact is that the American oil companies DO NOT agree with the U.S. Middle East strategy. Therefore the U.S. oil strategy in the Middle East is NOT in alignment with the so-called “beneficiaries”. The American oil firm do not agree with the “oil” strategy. However the Zionist are clearly on board with U.S. Middle East strategy and all you are doing Ramesfall is the old bait and switch that effectively stunts any real confrontation of Zionism. You doing your best Chomskyesque explanation feeds into the deception of activist that could be mobilizing against Zionism rather than wasting their energy making fallacious “War for oil” arguments that essentially has divided, stunted and divert the Left with the “plutocracy” laughing all the way.

    It is ironic but I also thought that the enemy of justice was on the Right. It appears that the worst injustices is coming straight from the Left as they have abused the trust of activists and kept them in a state of confusion.

    Folks like Ramefall and Max Shields are posers. Posing as leftist and posing as so-called “radicals” but are in fact REACTIONARIES who agenda is to maintain a state of confusion that effectively allows Zionism and most of all racist injustices to flourish.

  112. dino said on February 6th, 2009 at 2:52am #

    I am a leftist and I write what I am thinking.I haven’t any agenda,I will vote for the communist party in the next elections.I not deny that Israel is a racist state and no one can deny that because every poll show it clearly.I not deny that Israel doesn’t want peace because every election show that the more extremist and rejectionist is elected
    What I can’t understand is the explanation for the lobby power.This is how the article quoted Chomsky:”not pressure group will dominate access to public opinion or maintain consistent influence over policy-making unless its aims are close to those of elite elements with real power [emphases added].”
    How could Israel and her propagandists change the propaganda which shows Israel as a real ally against communism in a Jewish democracy which defend the free and democratic world if US weren’t a christian
    country with strong religious beliefs.How Clinton would say that US will obliterate Iran if in history of US and without the lobby contribution (in so far I know) exist Mossadek coup d”Etat,and the support of a war against Iran made by Saddam during 8 years.

  113. Ramsefall said on February 6th, 2009 at 4:11am #

    DB,

    NOWHERE did I state that Mex. is part of the ME, re-read and then get back to me. What are you smoking?

  114. Max Shields said on February 6th, 2009 at 7:28am #

    dino,

    Chomsky’s perspective is that there is a ruling elite and it is that elite who rules the US. I agree in general, but there is a sense that he is too quick to dismiss the powerful influence of that lobby.

    There is a Cuban lobby which has been fairly powerful in the US. It’s goals have been relatively aligned to the elite power order in the US. But they do influence the politics and support/endorse the foreign policy toward Cuba over the last 50 years.

    I think AIPAC does the same. It is not that AIPAC “controls” or “changes” US foreign policy in the Middle East, but it adds a dynamic which helps on a political level to keep the p0licy toward Israel consistent between administrations.

    But again, I agree with Chomsky. If these lobbies were out of line with the power elite of the US, they would have little to no sway. If the US pulls away from its onesided policies between I/P then it will be interesting to see what kind of government comes into power in Israel. So, far the government of Israel reflects the tenor of whatever coloring of the US administration happens to be. Israel went wild under Bush.

    I don’t see a fundamental difference in US administrations regarding Israel for the last 30 years or so. The geopolitics have had to adjust (and continue to do so) with the “fall” of the Soviet Union. Israel played a certain role in that power dynamics. Now we have a “war on terror”, a smoke and mirrors fabricated “enemy” attempting through propaganda to replace the Soviet “threat”. The relationship with Israel has shifted to that rallying cry.

    But the bare facts are there is no US Empire without vital resources. And those resources are vital to others in the chess game played out. Controlling them has always been the endgame.

    The dynamics – by definition – are not static. The Israel / US relationship will change.

  115. ALBERT said on February 6th, 2009 at 7:35am #

    MORE THIEVING FROM HAMAS

    UNRWA informed the IDF on Friday that it is suspending its humanitarian aid deliveries to the Gaza Strip after Hamas stole supplies the United Nations organization had transferred to the Palestinian territory.
    The seizure of the 200 tons of supplies took place Thursday night and in response, UNRWA officials informed the Gaza Coordination and Liaison Administration that it was suspending its deliveries to the Gaza Strip until further notice. The supplies confiscated included flour and other basic commodities.

    The transfer of 40 truckloads of humanitarian supplies – some 800 tons – planned for Sunday has already been canceled.

    It was the second time this week that Hamas stole UN supplies transferred to the Gaza Strip for impoverished Palestinians.

    The first incident took place Tuesday evening when armed Hamas police broke into a Gaza warehouse packed with UN humanitarian supplies and seized thousands of blankets and food packages.

    The seizure took place after UNRWA staff earlier refused to hand over the aid supplies to the Hamas-run Ministry of Social Affairs

  116. bozh said on February 6th, 2009 at 8:21am #

    ADL had been adequately/accurately exposed by chomsky 20 0r 30 yrs ago: as a bunch of people who attacked anyone for any rightful criticism of israel.

    i’ve said even before US attacked iraq that it did not do that to obtain oil but to obtain the planet.
    as to who makes money out of iraqi oil, that i did not touch on.

    after early 90s, turkey ceased to be as important to west as it had been during USSR reign.
    thus the plan arose to go ahead and cripple iraq and use kurds to further advance into asia.

    US knew that Turkey wld be fearful of aspiring kurds. but US needs kurds badly.
    part of syria, iran are also kurdish. and one doesn’t have to be an atomic scientist to vaticinate also end of these two states.

    what the US foreign policy makers (many of which may be ‘zionist’) have in mind for turkish kurds, we can only guess. but if turkey rebels too much, it also may get truncated.

    we know that israelis are now refreshing turkey’s memories of the armenian genocide anytime turkey strays.
    and one thought US wld never abandon this country; having served the west so well by allowing missiles on its borders pointing at USSR.

    that importance of israel is waning can be deduced from two facts: 1)there is still no israel; 2) pals are still in nearly all of expalestine.
    and mad rabbis are twisting and turning in their graves.

    these two facts are indicative of the weakness of israeli firsters to obtain a schemitischen frei (save mizrahim and sephardic peoples) eretz yishrael.

    interresting fact about all kurds is that they have not until very recent times demanded an independence; they merely wante greater share in economy, use of their language and other minor demands.
    but even that had been assiduously rejected by iran, turkey, an diraq.
    only after rejection of their skimpy demands they began to seek an autonomy.
    it seems they now want independence.thnx

  117. Hue Longer said on February 6th, 2009 at 8:23am #

    yeah Albert….Prison theft is a bitch. I’m sure Israel has a blockade to prevent all that theft, eh?

  118. dino said on February 6th, 2009 at 8:42am #

    Max,thank you.In the end of the WW-2 American politicians thought to bomb with atomic bombs 20 towns of their former ally URSS (according with Eric Hobbsawm’s “The short century).Someone have to have a certain ideology,a certain inside structure to be able to think in this way.A such structure can’t be get by the work of a lobby.The same about H.Clinton sentence.Mersheimer and Walt wrote that Israel lobby was an important factor in the decision to invade Iraq..Probably, but why the lobby didn’t manage to convince also French and Germany.Because the elite then in French and Germany were less close to neoconservative line.
    And to put in extreme,if Israel will decide that China is a better ally what will happen.I suppose that the lobby will forget Israel because they are first very rich people and after it they are Israeli’s patriots.Such a hint I think is in Raoul Hilberg book “The destruction of European Jews”).
    But if the lobby remains devoted to Israel could the lobby convince American elite to change to socialism?

  119. Ramsefall said on February 6th, 2009 at 9:39am #

    Max,

    excellent point you made with the impact of the Carter Doctrine which supports the long term projection thinking that I mentioned to DB.

    This whole war on terror is simply a ploy to distract the public from the real objective to control the world, primarily by controlling the flow of oil. They have wanted to be the guardians for at least 3 generations. Planning and patience are part of the game plan knowing that their objectives can’t be attained over night. Hence the plutocratic, duopoly that maintains the overall desired course for hegemony.

    I don’t want to make assumptions on what you mentioned about planetary destruction, but here in Colombia, Clinton’s Plan has utterly contaminated thousands of hectares of fertile land, rivers, lakes, plant-animal-human communities with their incessant use of Super-glycophosphate which is illegal to apply in the States. The hypocrisy apparent in such behavior breathes without any sense of morality. Now, as you likely know, after 10 years of polluting the Colombian environment, coca leaf cultivation and cocaine production are at nearly the same levels as when the Plan commenced. If Obama feels desperate in response to China’s curbing trade with the US, I believe we can be sure that he’ll continue to waste US tax payers’ dollars for ongoing environmental destruction.

    Stupid f**king humans!

    Thanks for your reply, and as always, best to you.

  120. Max Shields said on February 6th, 2009 at 10:22am #

    Obama has assembled a crew of militarists. He has yet to mention a word about military spending decrease to pay for a very flawed stimulus “package”. Imperial empire is in full control of the levers of power.

    It is the military growth which nails the coffin.

    The ecological damage the US industrialization project has unleashed is based on taking from nations, stealing, their natural assets. The shrinking of the US empire on every front is essential to turn the tide. The US will not be replaced as a world “power” because the resources to do it are no longer available.

    The political system cannot change this course. Voting, the election, has nothing to do with shrinking the empire. The Empire has two choices, reduce itself in a way that is both fair and peaceful or to propel the world into a major catastrophic world war.

    The military complex has the upper hand at this point. We have multiple monsters – ecological destruction (global climate change never before witnessed by the human species), collapse of the existing parasitic economic system, and the swift unsustainable energy supply which has made what the world sees possible.

    There is no way another nation-state will be able to even approximate the industrialization the West and primarily the US has undertaken. The planet CANNOT accommodate.

    It will take ALL of us to push this around if it is to approach the ending we desire. Fighting Zionism (while I will make my voice heard when ever Israel attacks Palestinian civilians) is but a tic in the side of the empire. It will collapse with the empire that breaths life into its existence.

  121. bozh said on February 6th, 2009 at 12:05pm #

    the word “influence” is a very high-order label; it contains or stands for or symbolizes an innumerable number events.
    in add’n, people who talk about influence by a group of people or individuals representing NGOS on US foreign policy and specifically policy on israel seem to be bound tight by either-or linguistic structure.

    i.e., either AIPAC , inter alia, influences (does one mean change, emend, amend, or set?) US foreign policy or it does not?
    but btw answers YES or NO, there may be numerous equally or more accurate/adequate answers.

    let’s just deal with the “sets foreign policy”. then question arises which country one has in mind. let’s take turkey.
    since 90s US has set a new policy for it. or?
    by whom? and when?. was it changed that much after it was set by state department while turkey allowed missiles on its soil or prior to 90s?
    and after AIPAC instructed or lobbied the state policy makers?

    it is possible. but can one imagine a highly educated foreign affairs specialist or group of such specialists learning that their labors over months or years had been scuttled and state department refuses to explain to experts why was the policy rejected/changed and by whom?

    how many of these people wld resign if dealt with in that fashion? and imagine one ‘ disgruntled’ employee writing a book about it?
    s/he wld make bundle of money. more cld be said.
    so my suggestion wld be to stop wasting our time on this subject and talk about it when some evidence pours in.
    i hope this is my last word on this topic. thnx

  122. Shabnam said on February 6th, 2009 at 1:12pm #

    Expose another closet ZIONIST by name of DANIEL BARENBOIM:

    {Palestinian violence torments Israelis and does not serve the Palestinian cause; Israeli retaliation is inhuman, immoral, and does not guarantee security. The destinies of the two peoples are inextricably linked, obliging them to live side by side.}
    By ‘Israelis’ he means the European colonists who came from far away places and have stolen Palestine By force and have pushed the indigenous population out through VIOLENCE.

    Thursday, February 05, 2009
    To Daniel Barenboim: take your piano and go away
    “By Daniel Barenboim
    To the Editors: Your readers may be interested in the following statement by Daniel Barenboim and the list of those who have supported it.
    Dina Haidar
    Ilona Suschitzky
    Emre Ülker
    Paris, France
    For the last forty years, history has proven that the Israeli–Palestinian conflict cannot be settled by force. Every effort, every possible means and resource of imagination and reflection should now be brought into play to find a new way forward. A new initiative which allays fear and suffering, acknowledges the injustice done, and leads to the security of Israelis and Palestinians alike. An initiative which demands of all sides a common responsibility: to ensure equal rights and dignity to both peoples, and to ensure the right of each person to transcend the past and aspire to a future.”
    I woke up to see a copy of this piece of trash in my inbox. I can’t say that I was surprised because I saw the name of Daniel Barenboim on top, and never expected much from him. I never liked or trusted this man, and his friendship with Edward Said meant nothing to me. I never felt that I need to befriend an Israeli to complete my humanity or to prove my civility. I don’t understand why Barenboim dares on the heels of the massacres of Gaza to lecture to the Palestinian people. This statement is a proof that Barenboim and every person who signed this lousy statement has declared himself/herself an enemy of the Palestinian people and their historical resistance movement which began a century ago. Just look at the political premises of the statement: they basically imply that both sides are at fault, or that both sides are just, and that we need to move on. Move on? At what price? And under which balance of forces. I would have no problem in signing this statement once we defeat Zionism and liberate Palestine and ensure the return of the Palestinian refugees. Only then I would sign it. You see this statement is a sneaky (but not smart) way to basically legitimize the facts on the ground which have been achieved by force–in favor of Israel of course. This is like asking a family that has been conquered and beaten and shot at and whose house has been occupied by a merciless killer to sign a statement to foreswear force once and for all. And notice the very first phrase: “For the last forty years.” Barenboim and his Zionist friends (every person who signed this statement and others in the Israeli terrorist army–those who signed this statement are basically identifying with the Israeli killers in Gaza, make no mistake about it) decide just like that to re-write the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Forty years? How did you achieve that magic number? …..
    http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2009/02/to-daniel-barenboim-take-your-piano-and.html

  123. bozh said on February 6th, 2009 at 3:15pm #

    recognizing theft of land from ca. ’30-48 is a criminal act. no, the 4 peoples (not two) cannot live side by side in two different states.
    it is possible that pal’n, mizrahic, and sephardic peoples cld live together in one land but only if ashkenazic voelken leave or get expelled back to europe.
    neither europe nor canada/US wld ever permit an ashkenazic state on their soil.
    if they are unwilling to give ashk’m a home, then pals also can reject them. the double standard shown by christian lands and empires is vitiating and criminal.thnx

  124. Danny Ray said on February 6th, 2009 at 7:32pm #

    Jesus boys, I must be slipping

  125. Kim Petersen said on February 7th, 2009 at 5:34pm #

    Dear Commenters,
    I did some cleaning up here. The comments were degenerating into name calling, which is strongly frowned upon. There is room for diversity and debate among social justice activists. I apologize if any nonabusive comments were removed. — co-editor

  126. Shabnam said on February 9th, 2009 at 6:27pm #

    The message of Barenboim, a closet Zionist, has been exposed and one of the signatory to his letter to the editors has withdrawn his name since he said: “what I had read is contrary to my belief and work in the last half a century.” Please read the entire letter.
    We should work together and convince each other to BOYCOTT ISRAEL and stick with it from this minute. In addition, it is very important to expose closet Zionists who are misleading the public.
    Monday, February 09, 2009
    Dia `Azzawi removes his name from Barenboim’s statement
    Regarding that lousy letter by Daniel Barenboim, I received this letter from Iraqi artist, Dia `Azzawi (I cite with his permission):

    “Dear As’ad
    Badr forewarded to me your message and the whole text of the document.
    I am very embarrassed to sign this document, due to my mistake not to read the whole text. My understanding was that the document is a sign of solidarity with the Palestinians facing the brutal onslaught of their occupiers. At the time when the massacre was going on in Gaza in front of the eyes of the world, Mr. Barenbaum’s Secretary called me; my expectation was very clear wording against the brutality of the Israeli army.
    what I had read is contrary to my belief and work in the last half a century. At the time I appreciate Mr. Barenbaum and other world figures who stand for the right of Palestinian people, but I will never ever accept this wording not because of the conflict goes much farther than forty years of heroic and historical resistance of the Palestinians and Arab fighters, and the millions of refuges, but also to the fact I am not neutral neither politically nor artistically between the occupation and the occupiers and also I have the same belief regarding the colonial occupation of my country Iraq.
    Lot of people in our part of the world change their beliefs like they change their shoes, but I am not of this type. I hope this is clear to everybody.
    Best regards
    Dia Azzawi”
    http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2009/02/dia-azzawi-removes-his-name-from.html