United States of Israel?
Robert Fisk does it again, this time meeting up with one of the authors of the recent study on the Israeli Lobby's influence on American foreign policy. The two professors have tried to stay out of the spotlight and instead respond to attacks against them through academic means. Not surprisingly, they have been attacked as anti-Semites because they dared to state the obvious: American foreign policy is heavily influenced by a pro-Israel lobby that pressures the US into making decisions that do not benefit the short or long term interests of Americans. On the contrary, this influence has had a consistently negative impact on America's relations with the rest of the world, and in particular, the Arab and Muslim world. More on the report in this earlier post.
The full text of Robert Fisk's article can be found on this great new blog, or on the Independent's website if you have access to the Portfolio accounts.
"Anyone who criticizes Israel's actions or argues that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over US Middle East policy," the authors have written, "...stands a good chance of being labeled an anti-Semite. Indeed, anyone who merely claims that there is an Israeli lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-Semitism ... Anti-Semitism is something no-one wants to be accused of." This is strong stuff in a country where - to quote the late Edward Said - the "last taboo" (now that anyone can talk about blacks, gays and lesbians) is any serious discussion of America's relationship with Israel.In the article, also Robert Fisk discusses the biased reaction of the American press to the release of the Walt & Mearsheimer study.
For a while, the mainstream US press and television - as pro-Israeli, biased and gutless as the two academics infer them to be - did not know whether to report on their conclusions... or to remain submissively silent. The New York Times, for example, only got round to covering the affair in depth well over two weeks after the report's publication, and then buried its article in the education section on page 19. The academic essay, according to the paper's headline, had created a "debate" about the lobby's influence.The infamous Harvard professor and staunch pro-Israel advocate, Alan Dershowitz, naturally felt compelled to attack the study arguing that the professors "recycled" bigoted "accusations", in other words, he played the anti-Semitic card. The professors are working on a response to his baseless accusations.
Robert Fisk recalls his own experiences in speaking out against Israeli policies and the pressure he faced from US to Australia throughout his career.
I'll leave you with the last section of the article as I don't think there's much to add.
Across the United States, there is growing evidence that the Israeli and neo-conservative lobbies are acquiring ever greater power. The cancellation by a New York theatre company of My Name is Rachel Corrie - a play based on the writings of the young American girl crushed to death by an Israeli bulldozer in Gaza in 2003 - has deeply shocked liberal Jewish Americans, not least because it was Jewish American complaints that got the performance pulled.[technorati tags: Israel, lobby, politics, US, Palestine]
"How can the West condemn the Islamic world for not accepting Mohamed cartoons," Philip Weiss asked in The Nation, "when a Western writer who speaks out on behalf of Palestinians is silenced? And why is it that Europe and Israel itself have a healthier debate over Palestinian human rights than we can have here?" Corrie died trying to prevent the destruction of a Palestinian home. Enemies of the play falsely claim that she was trying to stop the Israelis from collapsing a tunnel used to smuggle weapons. Hateful e-mails were written about Corrie. Weiss quotes one that reads: "Rachel Corrie won't get 72 virgins but she got what she wanted."
Saree Makdisi - a close relative of the late Edward Said - has revealed how a right-wing website is offering cash for University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) students who report on the political leanings of their professors, especially their views on the Middle East. Those in need of dirty money at UCLA should be aware that class notes, handouts and illicit recordings of lectures will now receive a bounty of $100. "I earned my own inaccurate and defamatory 'profile'," Makdisi says, "...not for what I have said in my classes on English poets such as Wordsworth and Blake - my academic speciality, which the website avoids mentioning - but rather for what I have written in newspapers about Middle Eastern politics."
Mearsheimer and Walt include a study of such tactics in their report. "In September 2002," they write, "Martin Kramer and Daniel Pipes, two passionately pro-Israel neo-conservatives, established a website (www.campus-watch.org) that posted dossiers on suspect academics and encouraged students to report behaviour that might be considered hostile to Israel... the website still invites students to report 'anti-Israel' activity."
Perhaps the most incendiary paragraph in the essay - albeit one whose contents have been confirmed in the Israeli press - discusses Israel's pressure on the United States to invade Iraq. "Israeli intelligence officials had given Washington a variety of alarming reports about Iraq's WMD programmes," the two academics write, quoting a retired Israeli general as saying: "Israeli intelligence was a full partner to the picture presented by American and British intelligence regarding Iraq's non-conventional capabilities."
Labels: Israel
posted by moi @ 12:27 PM
13 comments
13 Comments:
I am afraid I have to disagree with Tommy.
I absolutely love Fisk, and I have no problem with his English-like sensationalism of a story - I love that it's not just dry news coming out of him, and I actually got to meet the man and hang out with him, so there's nothing that can be done, I'm a fan!
Well done, Moi. Great article.
And I agree with rambling hal. Fisk is a brave man who calls it like he sees it.
I was lucky enough to be in his company once in London, when he was lecturing to promote "The Great War for Civilisation".
What struck me that night was when he spoke of his regrets that he had sacrificed any idea of family life in order to bring people the truth.
I suspect that Tommy must be one of the Israel First brigade, as I notice he didn't actually take Fisk to task on any point that he made in the article, he rather chose to dismiss Fisk in general.
That's always an indication that a poster is on shaky ground.
If he wants to argue any of the points that Fisk made, I'd be more than willing to debate them.
Tommy, as you can see in this post I'm not discussing his most recent book. In fact, I haven't read it yet, and the only knowledge you seem to have of it is through that link. I don't think it's fair to judge a book like that.
Everything I have read from Fisk so far through the Independent has been right on the spot. Yes, he does take a strong approach, and I think more journalists need to do that. He's one of the few that writes about the Palestinian issue through the eyes of the Palestinians, as well as other issues related to the Middle East in general.
He's not alone in his agreement with the Israel Lobby paper. As you can see, he's been the target of this kind of influence so he knows first hand what it feels like to be pressured one way or another.
Hal and Kel, it looks like all his admirers have met him, hehe. Although I can't say it was a personal meeting, one of the first big events I attended during college was a lecture by Fisk and it was amazing!
Hi Moi,
I admire the passion with which you post on the Palestinian cause in your blog.
Rest assured you have millions of supporters from this side of the world, if not in deeds at least in spirit.
Robert Fisk is one of the few journalists who have been consistently contributing impartial writings on what is actually happening in the Middle East.
As for Tommy, he can't even give a decent profile.
Well said Kilamxx: "Impartial Fisk". I could not agree more.
Here are the reasons for 9/11 by Robert Fisk: "Our broken promises, perhaps even our destruction of the Ottoman Empire, led inevitably to this tragedy."
Such an impressive analytical mind, such fairness and knowledge of history! Two words: GREAT JOURNALISM!
Tommy said, "OK, Kel.
So prove to me that Jesus was born in Jerusalem instead of Bethlehem? LOL!"
Actually I said I'd be happy to debate with you anything Fisk said in the article that Moi was discussing, which concerns the insane influence Israel exerts over US foreign policy.
That's the point you are trying to evade by simply attacking Fisk.
Kilamxx, thanks for your kind words.
Shlemazl, it would be better if you tried to argue on the merits of the argument which Fisk makes in the article discussed in this post. I cannot respond to a statement taken out of context like that.
Tommy, trust me, the US is not stupid enough to continue to provide billions of dollars to Egypt if it wasn't getting anything in return. The US benefits highly from providing financial and military support to Egypt as it helps sustain an autocratic regime while at the same time it makes useless calls for democracy in the country. Egypt is one of the largest Arab countries in population and is considered a leader in the region. Having Egypt fall into a democracy that would presumably be dominated by Islamist political parties is not something the US is interested in seeing at the moment. Therefore, the US continues to provide such aid to Mubarak's regime hoping and praying that it continues to stay in power and follow the conditions the US has placed on the aid.
Referring to Egyptians as uneducated and ignorant is very offensive to me and to many others. It is simply ignorant of you to throw out such repulsive attacks to not only a country, but a whole civilization that has more history than the US and Israel will ever dream of having.
In regards to the "benefits" that you claim the American relationship with Israel has garnered, I'm sorry to say that a simple cost-benefit analysis would yield a heavier cost that is simply not worth the stated benefits.
How does it matter that a country claims to be a democracy yet it flagrantly violates international law, UN resolutions, and the human rights of millions of Palestinians and even Israelis living under its control? Israel is not a Western, liberal style democracy. It is a country that clearly identifies itself through a specified religion, thereby inherently discriminating against its sizeable non-Jewish citizenry. I will not delve into the specifics of the discussion on Israel's "democracy" as I have discussed it earlier in this post.
Israel as an asset to "intelligence gathering" is laughable considering the fact that at the same time it sends spies to transmit sensitive American intelligence to its own sources. The US currently has very close relations with most Arab countries who do provide such intelligence. With regards to Iran, the US already has its own people within the country since the fall of the Shah and does not need Israel to provide it. I highly doubt that the most powerful nation on earth needs the help of Israel to get intelligence on arguably the most important region in the world today which the US is already heavily investing billions of dollars in.
A well-educated populace and collaboration on scientific and technological issues is not really worth the lives of Americans, is it? It is not worth threatening close relations with dozens of Arab and Muslim countries who are essentially of much more interest to the US than is Israel. It's not worth making the US look like Israel's puppy. It's not worth losing American credibility in most parts of the world today. The benefits of this relationship do not justify the unjust way the US has dealt with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and it is not worth the money, the political leverage, the credibility, and the lives that have all been lost for the sake of this illusive "special relationship."
Tommy,
I don't want to drag this out too long because we clearly differ on most of the arguments in this debate. However, I just wanted to clarify a few points.
I never said that Egypt doesn't have problems. I simply don't like your blanket generalizations about Egyptians. I don't think Israel is the yardstick with which we measure how educated Egyptians are. And no, it wasn't Islam that brought Egypt to the current state of misery that it's in. Mind you, Egyptian civilization flourished under Muslim rule, but not until secular and Western influences arrived did the country begin to deteriorate. This past century has seen a downfall in the contributions that Egypt has provided to the region, but most importantly to its own citizens. It wasn't under the Ottomans or Islamic empires before them that Egyptians were uneducated. It is under Nasser and Sadat when the Egyptians lost their edge. High rates of illiteracy and low levels of education are a direct result of the corrupt governments that have lasted in Egypt for the past few decades, not an inherent character of Egyptians or Arabs or Muslims in general. Please, do tell the US government to stop the aid. Egyptians don't want "aid" that will cripple the progress of democracy because someone in Washington wants to prop up another Arab dictator. We could definitely do without that lame excuse for an Egyptian leader.
Finally, my rhetorical question at the end was not a threat. Unfortunately, your shortsighted jihadi alarm went off too quickly (too much jihadwatch this week?).
I wasn't only referring to the arguments made by terrorists who attack American interests using the Israeli-Palestinian issue as an excuse. I was also referring to the direct loss of American life at the hands of the Israeli government . One example: the USS Liberty attack where 34 US servicemen were killed and 71 injured when Israeli forces deliberately attacked an American ship in international waters during the Six-Day War. The majority of American officials who have seen the documents and/or were victims of the attack acknowledge that the attack was not an accident. Unfortunately, this "special relationship" with Israel continues to be an obstacle to bringing those Israelis responsible to face justice. The lives of Americans are not worth risking our relationship with Israel. That is what I meant.
Please, turn your "jihadist radar" off when visiting my blog.
Needless to say, I largely side with the Israelis on this conflict, so your arguments about Palestinian this or international law that are moot to me.
I'm sorry, but I do have to say that I find the above statement simply preposterous.
So what are you saying, you support Israel in the way some people support football teams and that you'll defend the Israeli position whether it's legal or not?
That's a hardly a high moral tone you've adopted and, for all you condemn Fisk, I've heard him be just as hard on Arafat as he is on Israel. He appears to have an objectivity that you are proud not to possess.
Tommy: "Since you are asking me a direct question, let me clarify what I am saying for you. I am stating that I generally find the arguments of the pro-Palestinian side of this debate unconvincing.
I generally find it is supporters of the Palestinian argument who behave like they are blindly supporting "football teams." Their reaction to suicide bombings, for instance, ranges from general approval to only very mild disapproval."
Thank you for responding. The latter is much more reasoned than the comment I pulled you up on which was, "Needless to say, I largely side with the Israelis on this conflict, so your arguments about Palestinian this or international law that are moot to me."
Do you stand by your phrase that international law is moot to you?
And I do condemn suicide bombing as I condemn the killing of all innocents to further a political cause.
However, a historic wrong has been done to the Palestinians and it has to be corrected.
But, to my main point, does international law apply to Israel in your book?
Hi Tommy,
I have read Horowitz and find him to be no more than a mouthpiece for the Likud Party spreading Hasbara.
And I do know where you are coming from with your comments regarding the UN. This is a common stance for supporters of Israel. If we are being condemned then it must be the fault of the organisation condemning us rather than the fact we are carrying out the longest occupation in modern history, an occupation that we are using as an excuse to steal land.
But, I'm interested in this. Do you agree with International law when it condemns Saddam or Ahmadinejad? Because Bush is currently going through the UN attepting to get resolutions against Iran that he will then enforce. Is international law only wrong in relation to Israel?
And I'm interested in you saying that you'd favour the US leaving the UN. How would that work? Who would provide Israel with her much needed vetoes if the US wasn't there?
Tommy, you said:-
‘Al-Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center; Osama has admitted it; what more do you need?’
This is what Bush & co want everyone to think. How convenient for them to have “found” Osama’s “confession tape” just after they invaded Afghanistan, making the tape public in December 2001 just 3 months after 9/11. Their squads of video watchers must have worked overtime going through every video tape found in every building in Afghanistan just in case one showed Osama confessing.
The video was a fake. The ‘Osama’ that was on the ‘lucky find’ video looked nothing like the pictures of Osama previously released by the FBI.
The quality of the video was very poor and the accuracy of the official translation of the tape was questioned by most Arab linguists.
There is excessive noise on the audio track, making it impossible to really hear what is being said. Given that the tape was recorded in an area supposedly devoid of audio urban signature, there should have been little ambient noise, yet the speech is masked with a great deal of noise. Then there is also a gap in the audio track. The tape was obviously doctored.
Osama’s September 28, 2001 denial of involvement in the 9/11 attacks stated his stance. Of the US and Israel relations he had the following to say:-
“This system is totally in control of the American-Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States. It is clear that the American people are themselves the slaves of the Jews and are forced to live according to the principles and laws laid by them. So, the punishment should reach Israel. In fact, it is Israel, which is giving a blood bath to innocent Muslims and the U.S. is not uttering a single word.” [Public Action]
And his views were the same in 1998:
"We say to the Americans as people and to American mothers, if they cherish their lives and if they cherish their sons, they must elect an American patriotic government that caters to their interests, not the interests of the Jews." [American Free Press]
You can check out details on the fake Osama video at this website:-
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html
As to Tommy’s dismissal of my article as being part of a conspiracy theory, it is the US government’s official story on the 9/11 attacks that is looking like the conspiracy theory as more US citizens start to realize that they have been lied to by their government.
Hi Tommy, sorry it's been a few days since I've been on here.
*My condemnation of the United Nations hardly rests on its stance toward Israel alone. The United Nations has been involved in numerous scandals such as the sexual abuse of children in Africa and the Oil-for-Food Program*
The scandals at the Oil for Food programe mostly involved American companies; and, it has been suggested, with the connivance of their government.
*its history of peacekeeping is of dubious success;*
It was set up to prevent a Third World War. It has been an unquestionable success in that regard. It's not a success in the eyes of Americans like yourself who seem to think it's there simply to rubber stamp American wars of aggression.
*I don't think pronouncements by international bodies amount to much, either way. Certainly I support multilateral action against people like Saddam where needed, but I don't think simply issuing condemnations is worth very much.*
The question is actually whether you believe in international law or not? It's a yes or no. I think you are fudging on this point.
Israel is currently outside of international law, which doesn't appear to bother you. Yet, when Saddam is outside of international law, that appears to bother you a lot.
Are you playing with a level playing field or are you making the rules up as you go along?
*Such actions are better off coordinated by countries outside of the framework of the UN or in international bodies with a more specific purpose (i.e. NATO).*
Is this a clever attempt to lead me into a corner regarding Clinton's illegal actions towards the former Yugoslavia?
*The UN is almost meaningless.*
Why do you give yourself the out of "almost?" I think that's the crux of your hypocrisy. It's meaningless when it doesn't say what you want it to say. At all other times your country demands that it's resolutions be upheld.
Post a Comment
<< Home