For One Democratic State
in the whole of Palestine (Israel)

FOR FULL EQUALITY OF NATIVE AND ADOPTIVE PALESTINIANS

FOR One Man, One Vote

Home


Search

Discussion Neumann-Blankfort

 

American Power and Jewish Power By Michael Neumann

 

Jeffrey Blankfort to Michael Neumann: Re: Blame Yourself
 

Unjustified Attacks on Chomsky
By Blankfort and Neumann



From Larry Hochman:
 

To introduce myself, I am Larry Hochman from the Detroit/Ann Arbor area. I am a physicist, former physics professor, present lawyer, member of National Lawyers Guild, candidate for vice-president (in Michigan) in 1968 on the New Politics/Peace and Freedom Party ticket, and author of a 1967 pamphlet "Zionism and the Israeli State" published by the Radical Education Project.

 

Michael Neumann contends that the US is the pawn of Israel.

Jeff Blankfort appears to believe the same thing.

Neumann lauds Blankfort.

Blankfort savages Neumann.

Both Neumann and Blankfort savage Chomsky. Unjustifiably.
 

Neumann posits that US support for Israel is against the interests of the US ruling class. I disagree but at least it is arguable that he knows the true intrests of the rulers better than the rulers do. His lesson from that, however, is that the left could and should help the Palestinian cause by lecturing the US ruling class on how it can best reinforce its empire - that, to me, is patent nonsense.
 

(Chomsky would probably not say "patent nonsense," but something like "untenable" - he is calmer and more even-tempered than I and than Blankfort who sometimes enlists vituperation.)

 

Blankfort contends that the left, and not only the Jewish left, is silenced by its conscious or subconscious - what? Love for Israel? Jewish identity? Fear of the label of anti-Semitism? My experience is totally different. I do not know any RADICAL Jews who are pro-Israel or pro-Zionist. Liberal Jews and non-radical anti-war Jews, yes.

I created a sign with which I marched in DC, Detroit, Ann Arbor, Royal Oak and with which a friend of mine marched in New York. There was admiration for the message and zero opposition. People smiled and photographed it. The sign has a straight line drawn from DC (with an American flag) to London (with the Union Jack), and another straight line drawn from London to Tel Aviv (with the Israeli flag). The two lines form an angle greater than 90 degrees, i.e. "obtuse." Under the map is the legend "OBTUSE ANGLE OF EVIL." I experienced none of the negativity and fear that Blankfort did on the west coast.

As Alex Cockburn stated in the April 18 Nation, the "role of the pro-Israel neocons in pushing for war on Iraq has been exhaustively documented." As he also wrote:

Much of the dedication in this antiwar movement, as with every other leftist, antiwar, progressive and peace movement in the past century here, is provided by Jews and Jewish organizations. To take the issue of Israel/ Palestine, look at Jews Against the Occupation...One of the founders of the amazingly courageous International Solidarity Movement is Adam Shapiro, and a significant percentage of their activists are Jewish These people are putting their life on the line every day in the way Rachel Corrie did.

In an interesting article in the May 5 Nation by Philip Green, "Anti-Semitism,' Israel and the Left," he wrote that "it is not anti-Semitic to say, as [Congressman] Moran perhaps intended to say and as is often said on the left, that 'the Jewish lobby is one of the biggest obstacles to a rational American Middle East policy'." (I take issue with the contention that the policy of the US oligarchy is not rational from their perspective.} Further:

"[T]he simple nationalistic equation of "Israel" and "Jewish" has a lot to answer for. To the extent that self-anointed JEWISH SPOKESPERSONS, with the opportnistic assis-tance of the right, HAVE WORKED TO MAKE ISRAEL AND JEWISHNESS SYNONYMOUS, it is they-and not the left-who have sown the dangerous seed of new waves of anti Semitism." (my emphasis).

That is very well-put and well-taken. I do take issue with Green's defense of AIPAC members from the charge of "dual loyalty." Clearly AIPAC's "loyalty" is with Israel. I have no qualms about throwing the accusation of "dual loyalty" in the faces of those who proclaim ANY loyalty. "Loyalty" to what? A government? People? An economic system? Trees and mountains? Is a nation more deserving of "loyalty" than a football team? How can one take "pride" in being a [you name it]? Is an accident of birth some accomplishment or achievement?

At the head of the alleged coterie of "Jew absolvers," apparently, is Noam Chomsky (in Blankfort's mind). That charge against Chomsky is garbage - or patent nonsense. The one response on 4-19-03 in "shamireaders" (which I assume is the site of Israel Shamir who, when he is intelligible, is incredible) which I found worth reading is that of James Essig. (Anybody know his E-mail?) That is one response that Blankfort chose not to answer.

If Chomsky told Blankfort it was "not useful" to debate him, perhaps it was because of Blankfort's tone and tenor - e.g. "Judeo/Nazi," stuff that I would sometimes like to say but don't because it is not terribly effective. Neumann's valid accusation that I emloy "rhetoric" applies to Blankfort as well. Maybe Chomsky, with his careful scholarship and tight, even tedious at times, analysis, doesn't want to engage with Blankfort's lapses into bombast. Who knows?

Blankfort pulls a few Chomsky sentences from over the years and turns on its head Chomsky's true position which is four-square anti-imperialist, anti-Zionist, anti-Israel and anti-the American/Jewish cabal which so heavily influences (a) the US ruling class, (b) the US Jewish community, and (c) the US non-Jewish community.

Well, I randomly picked out a sentence or two from Chomsky's "World Order Old and New," 1996, p. 293-294. He agrees with one Avi Sarit from an article (Haaretz and NYT): "We believe with absolute certitude now with the White House and Senate and...Pentagon and New York Times that the lives of Arabs do not count as much as ours...We believe with absolute certitude that when we have AIPAC, Bronfman, ADL, Dimona, Holocaust Museums, we have the right to tell 400,000 people to flee and the riught to rain 16,000 bombs on their villages...to kill without any guilt." Chomsky notes that Israel's actions are essentially unchecked, that "Israel inherited [from the US] the right to do as it chooses."

I do not contend that that is a ringing emphasis on the all-powerful AIPAC which leads Uncle Sam by a ring throush his nose and makes him jump through hoops. But Chomsky gives his imprimatur to the notion that AIPAC is one important component cementing the US to Israel. He does not hem. He does not haw. He straightforwardly empraces Sarit's sardonic, but telling, depiction of the ugly state of affairs.

It is gross and incomprehensible overkill for Blankfort to spend his entire 11 pages attacking Chomsky.

The whole issue is a matter of EMPHASIS. Is AIPAC, etc., responsible for 55% of US middle-east policy? 95%? Whatever percentage, the left should fight it. If Blankfort is right as to the overwhelming pre-eminence of US-Jewish influence, I suppose we should fight it even harder. HOW? And, pray tell, how would knowing the correct percentage make it any easier to combat?

It is off-putting how often Blankfort's responses are such as "too absurd to discuss" or lamentations that he has "space limitations."

As to Neumann, at every march/demonstration I have participated in there were abundant "Justice for Palestinians"-type signs and banners.

To repeat what I E-mailed to Neumann on 4-17-03, if Israel, AIPAC, and Jewish money control the US agenda in the mid-east, AND IF that agenda is contrary to the interests of the US ruling class, as Neumann believes, some weird questions arise. Sholdn't the left be HAPPY that the US empire is ignorantly defeating its intrests? How much should that happiness be tempered by SADNESS that the Palestinians are paying for it? Or should we say, "Hey, US ruling class, abandon your Israeli liability, embrace Palestinians, further your own hegemonic interests, extend your economic, military and political power in the mid-east? " And leave it at that? Or should we add: "Be advised, because we do not want to be deceptive to the US masses, that we don't REALLY want to further your global designs and after Israel is cut down to size and Palestinians are stated and sated, we are going to overthrow you."

IF NEUMANN (AND BLANKFORT??) IS/ARE CORRECT, THE LEFT IS IN A TOTAL QUANDARY with No Exit.

Well-known names that come to my mind who are serious, committed and rational advocates for the Palestinians are Chomsky, Cockburn and Said. That is the case whether or not they agree with me on all or some of the following:
 

- Support for Israel has been and continues to be in the "national" interest of the US ruling class.
 

- The US ruling class dominates Israeli policy and Israel is a useful tool for it, despite recalcitrance.
 

- Israel, with 5 million Jews and all its armaments, logistical skills, etc., is a REGIONAL power and can never be anything more than that; it is not a co-equal of the US ruling class with its 280 million compliant inhabitants, its massive economy, its nuclear arsenal.

 

- AIPAC, organized US Jewry, etc. can "control" 70-90% of Congress. Congress, however, is the absolute toady of the executive most of the time. AIPAC, etc., does NOT usually control the executive. When there is a plethora of Jews in the cabinet (Clinton) or in the second-level executive echelon (as at present), it is because the dominant US ruling class INVITED THE JEWS IN.

 

- The issue is CLASS, not ethno/nationality. Paraphrasing Debs's call to the workers that "we have a world to win," the US hegemon, gentile and Jewish, has a WORLD to exploit, dominate, frighten, oppress, keep poor---to hear all you internetters, one would think Israel and the Arabs are the only items on the US power elite's agenda.
 

My view is modulated but not changed by J.J. Goldberg's "Jewish Power" and Edward Tivnan's "The Lobby," which I have read and written on to Abdeen Jabara, and by Stephen Green's "Taking Sides" which I skimmed. Goldberg and Tivnan lead me to conclude:

a. US Jews are A powerful force. b. Neither author claims that US Jews are a DECISIVE force. c. Jewish money can defeat "foes" of Israel. d. Jewish money can insure the reelection of pro-Israel Congresspersons. e. Congressional resolutions can stay the hand of SOME presidential initiatives.
 

Goldberg, in a New York Times op-ed, contended that a protest from AIPAC "raises the political cost" for the US government to do anything that Israel opposes. It does not mean that US administrations will not accept that cost, has not accepted it and acted, and will not in future accept that political cost and so act again.

Perhaps the most telling negation of the notion of Israeli/Jewish "control" of US policy is found at pp. 213-214:

"...AIPAC could be a useful ally. Given its awesome reputation ...on Capitol Hill....and...its close ties to the Democrats the lobby could often sell administration policies that the White House it- self could not sell. AIPAC was regularly enlisted to line up congressinal support for the overall foreign-aid package, an unpopular program with little grass-roots backing outside the Jewish community...Through the 1980s, AIPAC lobbyists regularly helped the Reagan administration line up Democratic congressional support on unlikely issues from Central America to sub-Saharan Africa...Israel and America embarked on a series of joint adventures, both overt and covert, aiding the Nicaraguan contras, training security forces in Zaire, sending arms secretly to Iran."

I find the contention that Israel armed the "contras," etc., in order to further its arms industry lacking merit. Why didn't it arm the Sandinistas or the Angolan government? Israel cares nothing about Nicaragua or the Congo. It was a lackey to the US, doing US bidding in the "national interest" of US capital. As Nixon argued, Israel after 1970 was not merely a worthy cause; it was "a strategic Cold War asset...America needed Israel as much as Israel needed America," Goldberg, p. 199.

To the question "If support for Israel is in the US national interest, why is there such a huge lobbying organization and PACs working to get the US government to support Israel?" Goldberg gives the answer in one word: "insurance." At pp. 266-272 he states that one brings coals to Newcastle to insure that people already predisposed to your interests STAY in power.

One could ask the same question: why a gun lobby, a milk-price support lobby, etc., since their interests always overwhelmingly prevail? Answer: to keep it that way, to try to squelch any grass-roots challenge, and so forth.

Another reason: there can always be COMPETING perceived US "national interests," e.g. the AWACS sale to Saudi Arabia. Both that sale and continued underwriting of Israel were perceived by the US to be in its "national interest." The US thought Israel already strong and secure enough to tolerate the sale. To AIPAC, Israel could never be strong enough.

Yet another reason - to help the US government "avoid mistakes" such as forcing Israeli withdrawal from Sinai in 1957 and thus building up Nasser, Goldberg at p. 157.

George Ball in "The Passionate Attachment" (1992) makes a cogent point at pp. 224-225. (SEE FOOTNOTE)

As to Stephen Green, his examples are unpersuasive. At p. 224 he claims that the Eshkol government acted in ways that ignored US "national security interests." He does not say HOW the US so-called "public policy" on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, while covertly abetting Israel's nuclear program, harmed the US ruling class's real or perceived "national security interests."

I disagree that peace negotiations in the mid-east is a "long-term US objective," p. 245. So if Israel thwarted them in 1967, it was no skin off the US nose. I disagree that US "national security interests" had not been well served by "pandering to Israel." (Note Green's continuous inclusion of "security" - as opposed to "profit" interest or "hegemonic" interest?)

There are three blurbs on the back cover of Green's book. Richard Falk calls the book an "expose" of the US "enabling Israel's militarism," which bespeaks US noblesse oblige, and says nothing about US national interests vis a vis Israel. J. William Fulbright learns that the US has "been led astray from our nation's interest in the Middle East." George Ball learns that the US must develop a mid-east policy "designed to advance its own interests." Neither Fulbright nor Ball show any alleged "harm" to US interests or define those interests. I must assume they know that US ruling class interests are profit and control.

I do find noteworthy two observations of Green . At p. 180: with Johnson "obsessed" with the Vietnam war, "Israel's military leaders offered to impose stability upon the peoples and countries of the Middle East-it was to be a 'Pax Hebraeca'." That speaks to at least a coalescence of interests between the US and Israel. At p. 250-251" "In all respects except one, ISRAEL HAS BECOME AMERICA'S CLIENT STATE.' [The one exception was failing to assist in Vietnam.] That conclusion is opposite to the proposition for which Mr. Blankfort (I think it was he) cited Stephen Green's book., "Taking Sides."

I am a novice at this technology. Please pass on to other interested persons.

FOOTNOTE: Ball states that "Support for Israel as a matter of conviction as opposed to mere political expediency is very shallow-not more than 15 percent or so of each House of Congress. It is easy to get one hundred senators to sign a letter supporting some pro-Israel position when there is not, at present, any serious or focused countervailing pressure to oppose AIPAC-sponsored policies. But, should the Jewish community become divided and flag in its pro-Israel zeal, or should significant groups begin to express opposition, such congressional support could melt away with lighting (SIC) speed. American opinion has a tendency to veer suddenly from one extreme to another and many congressmen today tend to resemble weathervanes rather than lawmakers with strong convictions." What that says to me is that the Jewish pressure-aspect of US support for Israel could decrease. I suppose sol. But the national interest-aspect of US support is likely to remain vibrant for the foreseeable future. Israel is a western outpost. It is a fetter to Arab unity, to any new nationalist Nasserism, to any build-up of Arab strength (e.g. the destruction of Iraq's reactor). Israel stands as a walled city, the message being that it is strong, it is rich, it has a standard of living impossible if based on Levantine resources, that it is not to be crossed, and that what goes for Israel is a microcosm of what goes for the US imperium. That is as true now as it was when the USSR existed. Israel's role is not negated because it has never shed a drop of blood for the United States.

From: Jeffrey Blankfort < jab@tucradio.org >

Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 23:54:25 -0700

Subject: Re: Fw: Unjustified Attacks on Chomsky By Blankfort and Neumann

Dear Israel,

Thank you for forwarding this. It is clear from the length and the vehemence with which Mr. Hochman has attacked me and my criticism of Noam Chomsky that I have, as they say, pushed his button. I will address his criticisms, point by point.

 Subject: Unjustified Attacks on Chomsky By Blankfort and Neumann


Blankfort savages Neumann.

Only in your mind and only based on your own anger at what I have written. Michael didn't think so and we now have a warm email relationship.

Both Neumann and Blankfort savage Chomsky. Unjustifiably.

Savage, professor? I defy you to find anything in either Michael's or my work, that could fit the definition of "savage." Do you really think what he or I wrote was "cruel" or "pitiless" (Webster) or were just engaging in hyperbole. The truth is that I went far easier on Chomsky than I might have, simply based on his introduction to The New Intifada in which he twisted history repeatedly to make his fundamental point; that Israel is basically doing the bidding of the U.S. I am sorry if I offend you by repeating the word "absurd," but that is what it is. And since Chomsky is held in such high regard, his position has effectively steered the movement from investigating the Israel lobby and how its influences the US body politic, not to mention its culture.

Neumann posits that US support for Israel is against the interests of the US ruling class. I disagree but at least it is arguable that he knows the true intrests of the rulers better than the rulers do. His lesson from that, however, is that the left could and should help the Palestinian cause by lecturing the US ruling class on how it can best reinforce its empire -- that, to me, is patent nonsense.

(Chomsky would probably not say "patent nonsense," but something like "untenable" -- he is calmer and more even-tempered than I and than Blankfort who sometimes enlists vituperation.)

Now it's "vituperation," defined by Webster as "bitter, abusive, language." Please, professor, provide me with an example.

Blankfort contends that the left, and not only the Jewish left, is silenced by its conscious or subconscious -- what? Love for Israel? Jewish identity? Fear of the label of anti-Semitism? My experience is totally different. I do not know any RADICAL Jews who are pro-Israel or pro-Zionist. Liberal Jews and non-radical anti-war Jews, yes.

I don't know how long you have been engaged in Palestinian support work, but mine goes back 33 years. I don't know any radical Jews who are pro-Israel or pro-Zionist but within the number of Jewish activists engaged in Palestinian solidarity work, the truly radical are few and far between. But that doesn't mean that at some subconscious level, the specter of anti-semitism doesn't occur to them. Certainly, that's how people like Dick Becker of the IAC-ANSWER respond when the subject is brought up and helps to explain why the subject of the lobby has NEVER been a subject on any program produced by the solidarity movement as far as I have been able to determine, with one exception, and that one exception was last year in California's Marin Co. when Alison Weir, who is not Jewish, put on a program in which I appeared with Palestinian lawyer Rajah Shehadeh, Palestinian Professor Jess Ghannam, and Israeli PhD candidate Yael Ben-zvi and spoke about the lobby before more than 200 folks, many of whom were Jewish, and who gave me, to the surprise of all of us, a rousing applause. In fact, we agreed that I should speak last because the topic of the lobby was so controversial that we were afraid, in what is normally Zionized Marin, that my talk, if I went first, would cause the meeting to break up. I describe this in some detail because it goes to prove my point, i.e., that "Leftists" such as yourself are the biggest blockers of the truth. Sorry if you think is "savage" or "vituperative."

I created a sign with which I marched in DC, Detroit, Ann Arbor, Royal Oak and with which a friend of mine marched in New York. There was admiration for the message and zero opposition. People smiled and photographed it. The sign has a straight line drawn from DC (with an American flag) to London (with the Union Jack), and another straight line drawn from London to Tel Aviv (with the Israeli flag). The two lines form an angle greater than 90 degrees, i.e. "obtuse." Under the map is the legend "OBTUSE ANGLE OF EVIL." I experienced none of the negativity and fear that Blankfort did on the west coast.

Great sign. Those who saw it got the message as more and more people are. But I'm not clear what this has to do with my argument.

As Alex Cockburn stated in the April 18 Nation, the "role of the pro-Israel neocons in pushing for war on Iraq has been exhaustively documented." As he also wrote:

"Much of the dedication in this antiwar movement, as with every other leftist, antiwar, progressive and peace movement in the past century here, is provided by Jews and Jewish organizations. To take the issue of Israel/ Palestine, look at Jews Against the Occupation ... One of the founders of the amazingly courageous International Solidarity Movement is Adam Shapiro, and a significant percentage of their activists are Jewish These people are putting their life on the line every day in the way Rachel Corrie did."

I am in complete agreement with that statement and Alexander is one of the few voices on the Left with the courage to speak out against the Israel lobby, but the "role of the pro-Israel neo-cons" has not been documented by the Left but by such folks as Bill and Kathy Christison, formerly with the CIA, Jason Vest, in the Nation, and several leading British journalists such as Robert Fisk. It certainly wasn't mentioned at any of the anti-war rallies out on the West Coast.

In an interesting article in the May 5 Nation by Philip Green, "Anti-Semitism,' Israel and the Left," he wrote that "it is not anti-Semitic to say, as [Congressman] Moran perhaps intended to say and as is often said on the left, that 'the Jewish lobby is one of the biggest obstacles to a rational American Middle East policy'." (I take issue with the contention that the policy of the US oligarchy is not rational from their perspective.} Further:

"[T]he simple nationalistic equation of "Israel" and "Jewish" has a lot to answer for. To the extent that self-anointed JEWISH SPOKESPERSONS, with the opportnistic assis- tance of the right, HAVE WORKED TO MAKE ISRAEL AND JEWISHNESS SYNONYMOUS, it is they-and not the left-who have sown the dangerous seed of new waves of anti Semitism."

I agree. When it comes to the organized American Jewish community, all of whose organizations devote the most significant portion of their time in defending Israel and intimidating its critics, Israel and Jewishness have become synonymous (my emphasis).

That is very well-put and well-taken. I do take issue with Green's defense of AIPAC members from the charge of "dual loyalty." Clearly AIPAC's "loyalty" is with Israel. I have no qualms about throwing the accusation of "dual loyalty" in the faces of those who proclaim ANY loyalty. "Loyalty" to what? A government? People? An economic system? Trees and mountains? Is a nation more deserving of "loyalty" than a football team? How can one take "pride" in being a [you name it]? Is an accident of birth some accomplishment or achievement?

Agreed.

 If Chomsky told Blankfort it was "not useful" to debate him, perhaps it was because of Blankfort's tone and tenor -- e.g. "Judeo/Nazi," stuff that I would sometimes like to say but don't because it is not terribly effective.

Judeo-Nazi is a term used in Israel where, to their credit, some Israelis tend to describe things as they are, and what is universally referred to the "Jewish lobby" in the US is scorned for the negative role it has played in Israeli politics. In 1991, in the Middle East Labor Bulletin, which I edited, I did a special section of how Israelis, leading journalists and a rabbi, viewed the lobby. When I went on the Pacifica station KPFA and read from some of the selections, I was told that they sounded like "classic anti-semitism."

 Blankfort pulls a few Chomsky sentences from over the years and turns on its head Chomsky's true position which is four-square anti-imperialist, anti-Zionist, anti-Israel and anti-the American/Jewish cabal which so heavily influences (a) the US ruling class, (b) the US Jewish community, and (c) the US non-Jewish community.

On P. 39 of the Fateful Triangle, Chomsky assumes the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state within its 1967 borders. That, my friend, makes him a Zionist, as it does anyone who supports a two-state solution. I will grant that he is against Israeli policies, but not that he is anti-Israel, per se. And since I never hear him talk about the American/Jewish cabal or mention it in his writings, perhaps, you would provide me with the evidence. Not that I don't believe it, but if he doesn't write or say it, it's meaningless.

 
I do not contend that that is a ringing emphasis on the all-powerful AIPAC which leads Uncle Sam by a ring through his nose and makes him jump through hoops. But Chomsky gives his imprimatur to the notion that AIPAC is one important component cementing the US to Israel. He does not hem. He does not haw. He straightforwardly embraces Sarit's sardonic, but telling, depiction of the ugly state of affairs.

Wonderful. Perhaps, one day, he will put it his own words, and mention the subject the again. That's 1997 and right at the moment, we have 75 US senators and at least 262 House members who have written a letter to Bush telling his to drop the "road map" business. When one considers how pathetic the "road map" is in the first place, you realize the power that the lobby can mobilize. It was a similar letter to Daddy Bush calling for Israel to get $10 billion in loan guarantees in 1991 that he ignored and challenged, that led to his defeat in 1992. And by the way, I notice that you make no reference to any of the historical arguments I presented in my critique, including the comparison of the action of both Bushes..

It is gross and incomprehensible overkill for Blankfort to spend his entire 11 pages attacking Chomsky.
The whole issue is a matter of EMPHASIS. Is AIPAC, etc., responsible for 55% of US middle-east policy? 95% ? Whatever percentage, the left should fight it. If Blankfort is right as to the overwhelming pre-eminence of US-Jewish influence, I suppose we should fight it even harder. HOW? And, pray tell, how would knowing the correct percentage make it any easier to combat?

Well, first of all, the Left, such as it is, and with a few exceptions, doesn't even acknowledge that the problem exists. And you seem to be fighting against raising the problem, so that puts you arm in arm with Dick Becker, and ANSWER, not to mention Michael Lerner, or is that a low blow? How do we fight it? First, by not attacking the messenger. Second, have major forums on the subject with various positions being represented, Third, hold politicians who blindly support Israel to the same standards of those who supported apartheid in South Africa. That the Left, with but a handful of exceptions has never done that, indicates, if nothing else, the level of anti-Arab racism that permeates the Left. Fourth, picket the offices of Jewish organizations and federations that support Israel much as similar offices of South African airlines were picketed during the anti-apartheid struggles. And knowing the percentage of power of, let us say, the lobby over the Democrats, would blow people's minds and make them look at the system with new eyes.


As to Neumann, at every march/demonstration I have participated in there were abundant "Justice for Palestinians"-type signs and banners.

So what? No one is arguing that there aren't people out there for Palestine. But the signs, themselves, are hardly enough. Why was such a slogan not on the flyers of the main anti-war marches? Why is there not a national campaign to stop all aid to Israel. Period?

To repeat what I E-mailed to Neumann on 4-17-03, if Israel, AIPAC, and Jewish money control the US agenda in the mid-east, AND IF that agenda is contrary to the interests of the US ruling class, as Neumann believes, some weird questions arise. Shouldn't the left be HAPPY that the US empire is ignorantly defeating its interests? How much should that happiness be tempered by SADNESS that the Palestinians are paying for it? Or should we say, "Hey, US ruling class, abandon your Israeli liability, embrace Palestinians, further your own hegemonic interests, extend your economic, military and political power in the mid-east? " And leave it at that? Or should we add: "Be advised, because we do not want to be deceptive to the US masses, that we don't REALLY want to further your global designs and after Israel is cut down to size and Palestinians are stated and sated, we are going to overthrow you."

If Israel did not exist, is very likely that the US would have had no problem in establishing military bases throughout the Middle East during the Cold War. But the question must be asked: Why, if Israel is such an important beachhead for US interests in the Middle East, has virtually every Secretary of State since 1948, with only one or two exceptions, found Israel to be a major headache and source of repeated battles with the Israel controlled Congress?

I F NEUMANN (AND BLANKFORT??) IS/ARE CORRECT, THE LEFT IS IN A TOTAL QUANDARY with No Exit.

It does seem that way. As I wrote in my article, the Palestinian support movement has been an "utter failure" and, with all due respect, your attack on me and Michael Neumann helps to understand why.

Well-known names that come to my mind who are serious, committed and rational advocates for the Palestinians are Chomsky, Cockburn and Said. That is the case whether or not they agree with me on all or some of the following:

Said repeatedly talks about the Israel lobby in the same vein as I have and Cockburn has begun to do so as well in the last year. And add to that list, Chomsky's friend some-time co-author, Ed Herman, but only Chomsky's position is acceptable, as I pointed out in my article.

-- Israel, with 5 million Jews and all its armaments, logistical skills, etc., is a REGIONAL power and can never be anything more than that; it is not a co-equal of the US ruling class with its 280 million compliant inhabitants, its massive economy, its nuclear arsenal.

-- AIPAC, organized US Jewry, etc. can "control" 70-90% of Congress. Congress, however, is the absolute toady of the executive most of the time. AIPAC, etc., does NOT usually control the executive. When there is a plethora of Jews in the cabinet (Clinton) or in the second-level executive echelon (as at present), it is because the dominant US ruling class INVITED THE JEWS IN.

Congress is the toady of the Executive except when it comes to issues concerning Israel and Palestine and if you haven't understood that from the books you have read or skimmed through on the lobby, I am not going to repeat them here.

-- The issue is CLASS, not ethno/nationality. Paraphrasing Debs's call to the workers that "we have a world to win," the US hegemon, gentile and Jewish, has a WORLD to exploit, dominate, frighten, oppress, keep poor---to hear all you internetters, one would think Israel and the Arabs are the only items on the US power elite's agenda.

Of course, class plays a role and explains the rightward directions of American Jews who are the wealthiest segment of society, but to say that the fact that the overwhelming majority of neo-cons who have written the script for the war in Iraq are Jewish is a matter of class and not their being Jewish is to quote myself, "patently absurd." Period.

My view is modulated but not changed by J.J. Goldberg's "Jewish Power" and Edward Tivnan's "The Lobby," which I have read and written on to Abdeen Jabara, and by Stephen Green's "Taking Sides" which I skimmed. Goldberg and Tivnan lead me to conclude:

a. US Jews are A powerful force.

b. Neither author claims that US Jews are a DECISIVE force.

c. Jewish money can defeat "foes" of Israel.

d. Jewish money can insure the reelection of pro-Israel Congresspersons.

e. Congressional resolutions can stay the hand of SOME presidential initiatives.

Goldberg, in a New York Times op-ed, contended that a protest from AIPAC "raises the political cost" for the US government to do anything that Israel opposes. It does not mean that US administrations will not accept that cost, has not accepted it and acted, and will not in future accept that political cost and so act again.

JJ Goldberg is a Zionist and is book was a clever way of co-opting the subject. Imagine had a non-Jew, or more to the point an anti-Zionist written a book entitled, "Jewish Power." Do you think it would get published or reviewed? Please.

 I find the contention that Israel armed the "contras," etc., in order to further its arms industry lacking merit. Why didn't it arm the Sandinistas or the Angolan government? Israel cares nothing about Nicaragua or the Congo. It was a lackey to the US, doing US bidding in the "national interest" of US capital. As Nixon argued, Israel after 1970 was not merely a worthy cause; it was "a strategic Cold War asset ... America needed Israel as much as Israel needed America," Goldberg, p. 199.

Ah, Goldberg, again. You should have a better source. Israel didn't arm the Sandinistas because not only did not the latter have the money, but they supported the PLO. Not only could they make more money selling arms to UNITA as well as RENAMO, but Israel was also working in behalf of their close allies in South Africa, in pursuit of their own interests and the lobby in the US was able to intimidate the Congressional Black Caucus in to keeping silent about Israel's arms trade with South Africa. Even Randall Robinson was afraid to talk about it.

To the question "If support for Israel is in the US national interest, why is there such a huge lobbying organization and PACs working to get the US government to support Israel?" Goldberg gives the answer in one word: "insurance." At pp. 266-272 he states that one brings coals to Newcastle to insure that people already predisposed to your interests STAY in power.

If all you have to fall back on are the arguments of a committed Zionist like Goldberg, you don't have much in your quiver. What the lobby does is make it impossible for a member of Congress to stand up and publicly criticize Israel without the fear of being targeted for defeat. And if there wasn't a lobby to keep them in line, the American public might know what the lobby has been doing, how much money has been going to Israel, how unions and state and city governments had gambled the retirement incomes of their workers on the health of the Israeli economy through the purchase, as a political favor, of billions of dollars of Israel Bonds, and the word "treason" would not be spoken with a whisper.

One could ask the same question: why a gun lobby, a milk-price support lobby, etc., since their interests always overwhelmingly prevail? Answer: to keep it that way, to try to squelch any grass-roots challenge, and so forth.

Another reason: there can always be COMPETING perceived US "national interests," e.g. the AWACS sale to Saudi Arabia. Both that sale and continued underwriting of Israel were perceived by the US to be in its "national interest." The US thought Israel already strong and secure enough to tolerate the sale. To AIPAC, Israel could never be strong enough.

 Jeff Blankfort

FOOTNOTE: Ball states that "Support for Israel as a matter of conviction as opposed to mere political expediency is very shallow-not more than 15 percent or so of each House of Congress. It is easy to get one hundred senators to sign a letter supporting some pro-Israel position when there is not, at present, any serious or focused countervailing pressure to oppose AIPAC-sponsored policies. But, should the Jewish community become divided and flag in its pro-Israel zeal, or should significant groups begin to express opposition, such congressional support could melt away with lighting (SIC) speed. American opinion has a tendency to veer suddenly from one extreme to another and many congressmen today tend to resemble weathervanes rather than lawmakers with strong convictions."

What that says to me is that the Jewish pressure-aspect of US support for Israel could decrease. I suppose sol. But the national interest-aspect of US support is likely to remain vibrant for the foreseeable future. Israel is a western outpost. It is a fetter to Arab unity, to any new nationalist Nasserism, to any build-up of Arab strength (e.g. the destruction of Iraq's reactor). Israel stands as a walled city, the message being that it is strong, it is rich, it has a standard of living impossible if based on Levantine resources, that it is not to be crossed, and that what goes for Israel is a microcosm of what goes for the US imperium. That is as true now as it was when the USSR existed. Israel's role is not negated because it has never shed a drop of blood for the United States.
 



Response to Blankfort's Reply Re. Chomsky, and Blankfort's Second Reply

 

From: Dochoch29@aol.com


 Subject: Response to Blankfort's Reply re Chomsky

I apologize for the use of hyperbolic language such as "savage" ("fierce - American Heritage Dictionary) and "vituperation." Many years ago James MacManus, editor of the National Guardian (NG), refused to publish a letter of mine saying he was not in the business of printing "vituperation and canard." I refrained from accusing you of "canard."

With that diversion out of the way, let me say that you don't know my "mindset" or the deep anger and hatred I have for Zionism for the devastation it has brought on the Palestinians and others and for how it has transformed and uglified a major portion of the Jewish people. To be lumped with Chomsky does not offend me. I am very respectful of him but not worshipful. But I can only speak for myself. I am not the least bit concerned lest I be called a self-hating Jew. The "specter of anti-semitism," whether creating or nurturing it, is not a concern of mine. (Is that the "Specter haunting the Jewish left?") I don't know your credentials to delve into my "subconscious."

In fact in a letter I sent to Alex Cockburn on 4-23 I stated, INTER ALIA, "Aside from his observations which are contrary to mine, Blankfort is very persuasive." So put my hyperbole in perspective. (I capitalize because I have not learned to under or overline.)

You refer to my "vehemence," to having "pushed my button," to my "anger" at you. I think that is akin to saying I doth protest too much. That way, you can never lose your argument because you contend that strong opposition to it shows sensitivity or nervousness and thus proves your point. That's pretty neat. It's the "Blankfort paradox," right up there with Zeno.

How can I "prove" to you - and why need I? - that I really believe that Israel is "serving US demands [interests] as a client state," that I am not motivated to "absolve American Jews from a primary responsibility," and that if I thought US Jewry was in charge I would say so? I can't. In any event you should distinguish which Jews you are talking about as Cockburn does.) Would it help to quote Hertz, "Pentateuch and Haftoralus," p. 314 on Leviticus XIX, 18: "Those who have been downtrodden prove to be the worst oppressors when they acquire power over anyone." I don't think it's a universal maxim.

You seem so disparaging of the left. Is there no sunshine? Do you WANT to believe that except for a handful it is all worthless? If so, a better maxim than Hertz's is "you can't reason a person out of a position that he/she hasn't reasoned himself into."

I came out of the Hashomer Hatzair (HH) movement, from age 11, and spent a year at Kibbutz Merchavia. (That, by the way, is a similar history to Chomsky's - "A Life of Dissent" by Barsky.) Despite your charge, I am NOT for a 2-state solution. I was and am for a unitary state. For all its faults and contradictions, and for its present indistinguishability from Labor, HH once stood for a bi-national, secular, Marxist state in Palestine.

There is a new Jewish peace group trying to form in Ann Arbor. After attending a couple meetings I sent the following on 4-11 to the involved people: "I would proclaim ourselves anti-imperialist which includes being anti-Israel and anti-Zionist. I would have the group not only call for ending the occupation but for an offer to all expelled Palestinian refugees to return ... I would reinstate the truism that "Zionism is racism" and add that Zionism is murder and expropriation ... ."

I received a reply from one marcher stating that our message should "not be an anti-Israel one as such, as opposed to a protest at the behavior of the current government. I will resign ... if I feel this vital distinction is not upheld ... [and] sets us apart from our fellow Jews in town and assumes our members are all anti-Zionists."

I responded by saying that the group might just as well join the establishment Jewish groups rather than seek recruits and if that's where they were at I would resign. I wrote further:

"I have no desire to shill for the broken-bones policy of Rabin, the weapons of mass destruction acquisition of Peres, the accelerated settlements policy of Barak, the "there are no Palestinians" declaration of Meir, or the planned dispossession and expulsion of Palestinians by Ben-Gurion and Alon. I SUBMIT THAT ONE CANNOT DECRY THOSE POLICIES WITHOUT BEING "ANTI-ISRAEL." To oppose the racism that says a Jew from Brooklyn or Birobidjan can be an Israeli citizen but not an expelled Arab or her descendants IS anti-Israel and IS anti-Zionist. That is a proposition that has to be faced forthrightly."

I went on to condemn Israel's Bantustan policy and called for the right of return for the expelled Palestinians. I continued:

"My lifespan does not encompass biblical lore. But it does encompass a tiny, religious, non-Zionist Jewish community living with Arabs who had been there for centuries, never indepndent, under Ottoman then British rule, never being consulted as to their willingness to harbor a European Jewry facing persecution, coming with western skills and capital to a biblical domain which inevitably they would dominate, despite all twists and turns."

I suddenly feel like I'm expounding my credentials in an application for a job.

I suggest that the efforts of US presidents to get Israeli withdrawal, and the heartaches and headaches of secretaries of state, have been largely for show.

I cite "Zionist sources" because Goldberg and Tivnan were recommended to me by my dear friend Abdeen Jabara for the proposition that the Jewish lobby/Israel largely controls the American mid-east agenda. I focused on portions of the writings that I thought tended to argue to the contrary.

Thus, Goldberg and Tivnan are not MY arrows. I submit that your barb "you don't have much in your quiver" is a lot nastier than calling one "vituperative" or "bombastic" or a "savager." Downright shitty, sir.

My sign put Israel right up there with the US and UK as co-equally evil and neither Jewish nor non-Jewish demonstrators found the concept abhorrent - that's what it has to do with your argument.

I could respond more but I have to prepare for a "House Party" for "Global Exchange/Rebuilding Homes" destroyed by Israeli /American bulldozers that my wife and I are having tomorrow. I hope you don't find that to be an empty gesture.


Blankfort's response:


First, I appreciate you sending me a political bio sufficient to establish your credentials. Such credentials are not likely to enhance anyone's career inside or outside of academia so I presume, or hope, rather, that you have tenure.


Obviously, we are clearly on the same page on virtually every aspect of the Israel-Palestine conflict, save one, and that is the measure of the power relationship between the US and Israel. Who is right or wrong on this issue is not merely an academic exercise for those supporting Palestinian rights but the foundation for whatever political action we may take.


Thus far, since the Palestine support movement, and that includes most of its Palestinian component has adopted Chomsky's position that Israel has been serving US interests as a client state much like other client states, such as El Salvador or Guatemala have done in the past, and that as Chomsky repeated last year in opposing an international boycott of Israeli academics, the US administration determines the limits of the envelope in which Israel can function and that neither the Congress (which he rarely, if ever mentions, or the Israel lobby has, in the long run, much to say about it.


What this has led to during the course of our struggle for Palestinian rights is ignoring of both members of Congress and the lobby and such institutions as the Jewish National Fund, or the ADL, etc., as targets of either protest or political pressure. And more than that, total ignorance on the part of the movement of what the lobby is and what it has been doing while the movement, myopic, has been looking in the other direction. What is indeed extraordinary and inexcusable has been the failure to make the issue of aid and tax-deductible donations to Israel not only a major campaign focus, but a focus of any importance at all.


Moreover, as I pointed out, the subject has been censored by the purported leaders of the movement, such as IAC-ANSWER and ISO on the West Coast and presumably, on the East Coast as well. One of the spokespersons for Students for Justice in Palestine who had claimed that the belief that the Israel lobby had any unusual power was "non-Marxist," agreed to have a forum with me on the subject, but within a half hour an email came back from him saying the had a change of mind that the group would be too busy with other important matters.


I had Stephen Zunes agree to a debate/discussion although he wanted Tikkun or the AFSC to be a co-sponsor because he was afraid that I would pack the audience with supporters of my position. I agreed to the AFSC and asked for a date around May 15th, but it looks like it won't happen because it has been five or six weeks since our last email exchange. One would think the discussion of the role of the Israel lobby and of the relative powers of Israel and the US would be an important issue for the movement. That it is never even discussed outside of an email list like this should raise serious questions about the movement's leadership, particularly when, as I wrote in my article, it has been such an utter failure.


One of the critical points of our disagreement and mine with Chomsky is how serious were the efforts of the various presidents to stop Israeli settlements and to get Israel out of the Occupied Territories. I cannot seriously believe that all of these individuals, from Nixon on, would have willingly experienced international humiliation simply for "show." A whole book could have been written about Carter's battles with Begin and the lobby and how he paid for it at the polls with only 42% of the Jewish vote, the lowest in modern times.


For the facts concerning the US-Israel relationship under the first Bush administration, I recommend Moshe Arens' "Broken Covenant" and a close reading of the Ball's "The Passionate Attachment" which, however, is a most difficult book to find.


As to who am I. I am and have been a journalist, a photographer and am now a radio program host on radio stations in San Francisco and Mendocino in Northern California. I was raised in a non-Zionist left household in which my father, who would become a blacklisted writer, actively supported a bi-national socialist state but became quickly turned off after visits to our home by some of the Zionist leaders in the 47-48 period such as the Haganah's head, Moshe Sneh.


My activity in behalf of the Palestinian cause began with a four month trip to Lebanon and Jordan in the summer of 1970 which ended with the beginning of Black September in Amman. It hasn't stopped since. In 1983 I went back again for four months, divided between Israel and Lebanon which it was then still occupying. In Israel, I found the most overt racism that I had ever seen as well as some serious anti-Zionists including a few among the members of Yesh G'vul who I interviewed. I should say that the awareness of the lobby and its power is far greater among Israeli academics then it is among the movement here.


In August, 1987, I co-founded the Labor Committee on the Middle East and in the following Spring became the editor of the Middle East Labor Bulletin, which we published until 1995 when our fiscal sponsor went out of business, and the movement collapsed totally in the post-Oslo period. During the first Intifada our small independent group organized most of the anti-Israel protest rallies in the Bay Area.


I tried to get Global Exchange to become our fiscal sponsor but taking up the issue of Palestine was to hot for them back in 1995, so they declined, saying they were not going provide any more fiscal sponsorships (which are necessary conduits for tax-deductible donations). Now, a little late, Global Exchange has recognized the issue. So I don't find your house party to be an empty gesture.


Jeff Blankfort

 

From Michael Neumann:

 

Hochman says: "Michael Neumann contends that the US is the pawn of Israel." I do? Where? I spent quite a bit of time arguing that the US is *not* a pawn of American Jews or the Jewish Lobby, though I completely agree with Blankfort that this lobby is very important and influential:

http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann01072003.html

To clarify further, I do not think that Israel makes the US into its pawn through some means *other* than lobbies, e.g., mind control rays. I think US mistakenly believes that supporting Israel is in its interest, and therefore supports Israel. I attribute this mistaken belief, not to Israeli manipulation, but to an outmoded perspective inherited from the days when Israel actually did serve the US as a counterweight to Soviet influence in the Middle East.


Hochman says:

> Neumann posits that US support for Israel is against the interests
> of the US ruling class. I disagree but at least it is arguable that he
> knows the true intrests of the rulers better than the rulers do. His
> lesson from that, however, is that the left could and should help the
> Palestinian cause by lecturing the US ruling class on how it can best
> reinforce its empire - that, to me, is patent nonsense.

There is a shift within this passage. What I claim is that US policy is against the interests both of the American people and of the American 'ruling class', or, I'd prefer to say, the preponderance of American corporations. I also, unsurprisingly, claim that those who formulate and execute US policy (re Israel) are mistaken about US interests. I do *not* claim that the American *ruling class* doesn't know its own interests, or needs lecturing. I am not privy to the views of the American ruling class. I don't even know if they *have* a view on US Israel policy, let alone a unanimous one. I know that some of them are big Israel backers, and some, in public anyway, are not. In other words, what I claim to know is that US policymakers aren't acting in US interests. If Mr. Hochman sees an unusual arrogance in this, perhaps he has never read a newspaper editorial or opinion piece, or perhaps he holds the acumen of his rulers in higher regard than do many millions of his fellow-citizens.


As for whether the left ought to try and change America's misguided Israel policy, Hochman professes bafflement: should we be trying to help the US ruling class? Part of the answer is that, in my view, this is one case in which the interests of the US ruling class, the American people, and indeed the Palestinians coincide. If I didn't think that, I wouldn't be making the proposal; it would be impractical. And I am not so creepy as to abandon the Palestinians because helping them might benefit the US ruling class. Presumably Hochman is simply trying to be cute: presumably he doesn't really think we should let things get worse and worse so the revolution will come.


As for tactics, I propose nothing unusual, simply a change of message. The old tactics didn't seem to work so badly, and would work better, I assume, if the left had something to offer, for example the notion of switching sides. I did not suggest that some message should be directed particularly at some 'ruling class'. At this point, it would be merely pretentious to think one could target certain groups; why not run up the flag and see who salutes? I do suggest that, if you don't even ask for what you want, you are unlikely to get it.


In discussing the left's 'support' for the Palestinians, Hochman retails the same old crap. Yes, the left is very critical of Israel. In fact it has made criticism of Israel into the last refuge of a scoundrel - a spectacular achievement.


I have been utterly and repetitively plain about what the left does *not* do: ask for anything that might actually stop Israel's crimes. My questions to Hochman, to Chomsky, and to any other critic of Israel are these: do you or do you not support a total embargo on Israel - not just cutting off aid, but cutting off all trade and all transfer of funds, both public *and private*? Do you or do you not want the US to join the Muslim world and the UN in demanding immediate and unconditional Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories? Most important, do you or do you not support the only thing that would give such a demand some teeth: a US military alliance with Syria, Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon? (This is not a call for war, but for what it would take to bring Israel to its senses.) If not, I am not interested in how often you condemn Israel. Such condemnations are nothing but an excuse for the refusal to back any serious actions against what you condemn. It is as if leftists were watching someone being kicked to death on the subway, and masked their refusal to help with ringing denunciations of the crime.


Michael Neumann
 

From Prof McGowan

Miriam Reik wrote: Chomsky may have changed his mind - fair play, Jeff!

In fact Chomsky has not changed his mind. He answered exactly this question last Sunday in Boston and downplayed the importance of a Jewish cabal or organized Jewish lobby.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From William Price:

I have to take serious exception to Mr. Noble's characterization of anti-Zionist protestors in Seattle as "vipers." I was at the protest he is referring to, and they were the only people who brought up the issue of Israel's involvement in the war. They were well received by most other protesters, and when some pro-Zionist "ARA" types verbally assaulted and threatened them, the Muslims in the march started a chant to drown out the hateful threats and slurs.

As for the website Mr. Noble mentions, I first linked to it from Israel Shamir's website if I remember correctly. I don't really care much about David Duke either way, yet I don't see how the truth could be any less true simply because he is speaking it.

Unfortunately, the usual anti-war protesters in Seattle have failed again and again to adequately address the issue of Zionism. Perhaps this is because Seattle is a provincial town that is slow to pick up on political trends, or perhaps it is because people on the "left" in Seattle care more about gay pride than they do about children being killed with the tacit approval of the United States.

I find it ironic that Mr. Noble chooses to characterize those protesting Zionism as a "nest of vipers," given that those were the words used by Christ to condemn the pharisees, the spiritual antecedents of the current generation of Zionist vipers that relishes in its blood-soaked power.

The people slurring legitimate protests against Zionism in Seattle are the same who are calling Wendy Campbell a nazi in San Francisco. They are the failures Mr. Neumann so eloquently described, and they are just one more obstacle in the path toward peace.

In conclusion, I would like to include a verse from the book of Matthew; one which I believe honors the sacrifice made by several young Americans in recent weeks:

Oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chicks under her wing - Matthew 23:37

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From John Wheat Gibson, P.C.

I fully agree with Elias Davidson that it is wrong to suppose there is a simple, monolithic entity, that is <<the Jews>>. However, by using the term in a way that presupposes a monolith, Blankfort is merely accepting thoughtlessly the fundamental premise of Zionist propaganda. Above all, Zionist propaganda seeks to convince people who consider themselves Jewish that all the world is hopping from foot to foot, eager to send them to the gas chambers. Today's constant barrage of <<news>> reports, movies, novels and television programs about the Nazi Holocaust 60 years ago is aimed at uniting Jews behind Zionism. The propaganda has the unfortunate effect of deceiving many of its Jewish recipients, and many in the non-Jewish public that overhears it. The paranoia is intended to create a coherent <<Jewish community>> of support for the genocidal aims of Zionism. It creates the very anti-Jewish loathing that it pretends to deplore, but, in fact, nobody is happier about anti-Jewish anti-Semitism than the Zionists, because it confirms their argument that all the world threatens <<the Jews>>, who therefore require a refuge in Palestine, even though, regrettably, they must reproduce the Nazi Holocaust against the Palestinians to achieve it.

Elias's argument that there is a class of non-Jewish rich people in the United States who could stand against the Zionist millionaires and billionaires is simply naive. As Blankfort noted, almost half the billionaires are Jewish, and those who are not lack the single minded Zionist fanaticism of AIPAC and the MEGA group of Jewish tycoons. Elias is mistaken to suggest that the non-Jewish billionaires in America care at all about the atrocities the US government funds in Palestine. They are no political counterweight to the Zionist billionaires because they are not united and, besides, they have no desire to oppose the Zionists. Although people who consider themselves Jewish are only two percent of the US population, 40 percent of the 400 richest Americans identified by Forbes Magazine consider themselves Jewish. And, unfortunately, they do yield to the racist propaganda of Zionism in numbers in which, fortunately, white Protestants do not yield to the racist propaganda of the Ku Klux Klan. And clearly their money does control the US government as Blankfort demonstrates, and the media, as Eric Alterman has demonstrated.

But I think we must make the intellectual effort, in all of our discourse, to penetrate Zionist propaganda, just as we penetrate Ku Klux Klan propaganda. To be a Jew is not to be a Zionist any more than to be a white Protestant is to be a Ku Kluxer. Hence, if we are to overcome the paranoia that is the bedrock of US Jewish support for the Zionist Holocaust in Palestine, we must attack the big lie that all Jews are perforce Zionist. We must attack the Zionist lie that Judaism is monolithic, because the purpose of that lie is to create a monolith. To destroy that big lie will be to liberate Jews from the monolithic paranoia that is the substance of popular Zionism. Most American Jews do not subscribe to the Master Race superstition of Sharon and the Likud, but they have been immersed all their lives in the bath of Nazi Holocaust mythology, a mythology that is particularly puissant because of its roots in historical reality. We must understand that 50 years of Zionist propaganda have been tremendously effective - not surprisingly, given the Zionist virtual monopoly over American print, broadcast and film media. We must understand therefore that the fears of the people among us who call themselves Jewish are genuine, subjective fears, and no less so because they are without objective foundation. We must be careful in our discourse to distinguish the racist reincarnation of Nazism that is Zionism from the religion that is Judaism, which has its decent and despicable adherents, just like all other religions.

John Wheat Gibson

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From James Essig
When Chomsky suggests that the Israeli lobby would be unlikely to have the influence that it does unless the U.S. economic/power elite perceived that Israel serves its interests, Chomsky engages in a fairly traditional economic-class analysis. That analysis provides a powerful explanation. Blankfort, however, suggests that Chomsky's analysis is somehow meant to absolve Jews of any need to feel responsible for Israel's atrocities. That contention is not credible.

Chomsky has consistently and stridently criticized Israel and its Jewish/American supporters. Blankfort suggests that the power elite has embraced Israel primarily because it has been bullied by the Israeli lobby. Although that contention has a grain of truth, it is far too simplistic. A comparison with the Black lobby is illuminating. Groups that lobby for African-American issues have been quite successful in encouraging an appearance of tolerance and support. Overtly racist comments are often severely attacked and reprimanded (note the Trent Lott travesty). Yet, in recent years the Black lobby has been notably unsuccessful in getting the substance of its policies adopted. Why? Because the power elite does not perceive those policies to be in its interest. The Israeli lobby probably can bully American politicians into moderating the tone of the debate. But it is difficult to imagine that policy makers would continue to support an Israel in conflict with the Palestinians and its Arab neighbors as long as it has and to the extent that it does unless they believed that a militant Israel furthered the interests - not only of the Israeli lobby - but also of the American power elite.

The topic is complex, of course, and I do not intend to write another essay. I believe, however, that Blankfort's criticisms of Chomsky, while interesting, do not give a fair hearing to Chomsky's position.

James Essig

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From Wendy Campbell

Hello all,

I totally agree with Andrew Hanos about Michael Neumann's strategy - that it is complete genious! Unlike the endless recounting of all the atrocities Israel commits against the Palestinians under false and selfish pretenses and just moaning and groaning about it, and unlike the illogic of so many leftists of placing all the blame on the US for the genocide of Palestinians at the hands of Israel (which has up to rather lately, has been going on pretty covertly for decades!), Michael Neumann is one rare voice who actually puts forth a STRATEGY that we can surely act upon!! It's obvious that it's not out of some irrational hatred of Jews that he came up with this brilliant strategy - this strategy makes perfect sense and it is something we must embrace if we are to stop endless war and Zionist-dominated/inflluenced US imperialism.

It's as simple as that. We must declare Israel (and the ideology of Zionism) as our adversary to defeat acting in compliance with the UN, completely side with the Palestinians and the Muslim world with regards to their right for equality and self-determination. We must embark on Operation Palestinian Freedom with great intensity and urgency - another issue Neumann brought up - a sense of urgency!!

The persecution of the Palestinians has been happening at least since 1948 and we must confront the genocide, the apartheid and the ethnic cleansing that has been and IS happening in Palestine NOW - even though some people may not be "ready" for it or find those words to be "inflammatory". Time to grab the bull by the horns. As the saying goes if you gingerly touch a thistle, it will prick you. Grab it bolding and you will squash it. Time to let any bogus, deflectionary charges of anti-semitism or whatever go it one ear and out the other - just move on boldly with the mission! Operation Palestinian Freedom! As Neumann said, we would use every action against Israel that the UN would back: sanctions, cessation of all aid (military, financial, economic), complete condemnation of Israel's ethnic cleansing campaign and stealing of Palestinian land for a Jewish supremacist state, demanding Israel's compliance with all UN Resolutions (Israel has defied over 70 to date), demand that Israel get rid of all its weapons of mass destruction, and delegitimize the racist ideology of Zionism both in US policies and any country we would give aid/support to.

We would demand that UN peacekeeping troops be sent in as necessary to stop Israel's demolition of Palestinian homes and other Palestinian property, as well as stopping Israel's extradicial executions and rounding up of Palestinians and illegally detaining them, etc.

We would demand all this until Israel is transformed into a true democracy with equal rights for all regardless of religion, race, ethnicity or sex, INCLUDING for all the Palestinian refugees who have the right to return to their ancestral homeland of Israel-Palestine which is their right according to UN Resolutions, International Law and world opinion.

We would demand that the one-state solution of Israel-Palestine have a constitution protecting the rights of all its citizens, regardless of religion, ethnicity, race or sex. There would also be a new flag for this new country - since the Israeli flag is obviously for Jews only and also has colonialism symbolically built into its flag since the two blue stripes stand for acquisition of Greater Israel between the Euphrates and the Nile rivers! The Israeli flag has got to go!!

Any Zionist Jews who don't like this new state will be free to leave. If they choose to stay and commit criminal acts and also break anti-discrimination laws they will be penalized accordingly.

This is the strategy. If anyone wants to discuss this strategy with me off this list, please e-mail me at wendy@sanfranciscoandbeyond.com. All those who are in basic agreement with me on this strategy are welcome to e-mail me. Otherwise, please don't waste my time.

Thanks!

Wendy Campbell Oakland, CA

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From Michael Neumann

A couple of comments:

Martin Kessler suggests "Have all Arab nations recognize the existence of the state of Israel and sign a peace treaty" as a way of getting Israel out of the occupied territories faster (than trying to get the US to switch sides). Perhaps there is a misunderstanding here. I mean something we could work for, not something someone else could: Arab nations would not and should not take their cue from American dissidents. And unless the treaties specified complete Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories, such agreements would only give Israel more incentive to stay, because they would have not even residual worries about the hostility of Arab states. In fact, Israel would never vacate the occupied territories just to make peace with states it neither respects nor fears.

Besides, Kessler's suggestion rests on the outrageous fiction that Israel's occupation is defensive. In fact many right-wing Israeli security experts think unilateral withdrawal will enhance Israel's security:

http://www.peace-security.org.il/enghome.html

Israel will make peace only when the balance of power changes, and it can change only if the US-Israel alliance is thoroughly broken. Otherwise Israel can always invent or generate some new threat to itself that will bring the US running back to its side.

Jeff Blankfort's work is in my opinion essential. The influence of the Jewish lobby can't very well be countered if its activities remain a taboo subject. And what Chomsky "said 10 or 15 years ago" will have to do, because he silence on the key issues relating to Israel has been deafening. Ensconced in the view that the US must only whisper about reducing aid to secure Israeli capitulation, he has consistently avoided recommending any measures that might actually hurt Israel - a total embargo, sanctions, military aid to Syria, and so on. Endless analysis of Israeli misdeeds should be an incentive to such recommendations, not an excuse for failing to make them.

If only in the interest of encouraging critical thinking, it is high time that Chomsky fans realized this. The problem with the Israel-as-cop-on-the-beat thesis is simple: there evidence for it is trivial, and against it, overwhelming. Has it escaped notice that, for over a decade and through two gulf wars, the US has had to bribe Israel *not* to be a cop on the beat?

Michael Neumann

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From Les Blough, Boston:

I've heard Noam speak a number of times dating back to his lectures on linguistics in the 70's at Vanderbilt University. I've also read much of his political work. I've always had doubts about his attitude to the Zionist state, even though I've appreciated his excellent work on U.S. aggression, neo-colonialism and imperialism. This article confirms some of my suspicions and is a 'must read' for the Chomsky-lover. I've passed it on to other activists on my list serve. I've also raised these questions now - with this article - with my Palestinian friends who recently had Chomsky for a conference here in Boston. It seems the Zionists penetrate every level of business, intellectual venue and society to sell their wares. As a peace activist, I work primarily with ANSWER/IAC - a great bunch of people who know how to build opposition to the US/Zionist state. Even there, one has to be careful.

Les Blough
Boston, MA

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From Elias Davidsson in Iceland:

Dear Shamir and others,

I read with interest Jeffrey Blankfort's article, " The Israel Lobby and the Left: Uneasy Questions". I have some problems with the arguments advanced by Jeff.

First, the fact that some people decry as antisemitism any allegation that "Jews control the US" isn't the issue. Surely some will do so. The question is not whether this charge is antisemitism, but whether the charge is true.

Second, the designation "Jews" is vague. What is meant by this designation? All people who in some form or other are Jewish by descent, confession, faith or organisation ? Some of them, and if so who ?

Third, in order to prove "control" the traditional method is to infer it from circumstantical evidence. But such a method has been used by others to demonstrate that it is the military-industrial complex that rules Washington, to mention another candidate.

There is, in addition, something utterly illogical in concluding - beside all questions of factual evidence - that a cabal of "Jews" would factually overrule the formidable power of the numerous non-Jewish millionaires and billionaires. To make such presumption is simply not plausible. If the most wealthy strata of the US were not well served by the efforts of the "Jewish lobby", they would have long intervened and fanned antisemitism. It appears that the "Jewish lobby" serves them very well.

In my opinion the Jewish lobby is left to act as it does because its agenda fits perfectly the imperial agenda of the US. Such imperial agenda reflects not the view of one person or group but the convergence of multiple interest groups, the arms industry, oil industry, coca cola, pharmaceutical, Microsoft, the "Israel lobby" and many others. This is how politics are made.

Elias Davidsson

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From Henry Noble

Other than that I'd say it in terms of Class, I absolutely agree with Elias. Does the placing of Powell father and son and Rice in the Bush administration prove an African American usurpation of power? Here in Seattle, we've run into a nest of vipers associated with KKK'er David Duke who carry signs with the message "No Wars for Israel" and have a website with the same name that's full of lists of which Jews are in seats of power. As though that proves the Jewish conspiracy. Good grief.

Henry Noble

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From Dr. Jo Tavener

Regarding Blankcroft's article on the Israel Lobby, it seems to me that Said's book on media coverage of islam says alot about the time it has taken for the left to come around to a more vocal and adamant pro-palestinian and anti-zionist view. In any event, the strength of the Israeli lobby, though important, seems to be the foundation of an argument - an argument never made clear in the article.

Furthermore, it is important to realize that there are a number of vocal palestine solidarity groups in the US now - I'm a member of one in Pittsburgh. As an American Jew it has taken me time to come around to this anti-zionist position. I know my reasons - none of them has been clarified in this article though Said's stuff on Islamic media representations has. Mostly, I think it was an issue for my feminism. I never really supported the notion of a jewish state. In any case, last Spring's demonstration in Washington against the war et al. has a very strong pro-palestinian contingent. The word is getting out despite the Lobby - so....what's going on. This article says nothing that can illuminate this growing solidarity. Besides Michael Tarazi, counsel for the PLO, who was here recently, kept telling us that the Lobby wasn't so organized and powerful as most thought.

Anyway, the point now is to stand in solidarity, to stop the US from sending military aid ( I was against embargo of Iraq and I am against economic embargo of Israel - and guess who would suffer most!) and convince those not involved in actively supporting Israel to reconsider.

Sincerely,
Dr. Jo Tavener

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From Miriam Reik, New York

I like Jeff and respect his opinions, but I am tired of his jumping all over Chomsky, who has done singular service in drawing people's attention to US imperialism. That doesn't absolve Chomsky from criticism, but it requires at least fair play:"

1) If you want to criticize a person's opinion, don't keep quoting what he said 10 or 15 years ago: the things he said may have been true then and are no longer (in this case, the Jewish lobby has, in fact, become far stronger in that period). He may have changed his mind - fair play, Jeff!

2) Arguing the importance of the Jewish lobby is important - but since foreign policy is not always (perhaps never) determined by one consideration alone, it is probably more worthwhile trying to evaluate the extent of the influence of others things and undermine them, such as the idea that Israel is a useful cop on the beat. If you are afraid to argue that we don't need Israel as a cop on the beat because it MIGHT support Chomsky's position, you have become a less useful advocate for Palestinians.

Best,
Miriam

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From Jack Graham:

Gentlemen, - My friend Israel Shamir has recently sent out this essay for his readers. It is part of a forum of people tending to the left in politics. They are asking why the anti-war movement "failed." I have told them that they did not fail, but mobilized more quickly and powerfully than during the Vietnam era, but could not succeed because now the United States has developed high-tech conventional warfare so the war was over before they could prevail, and that they were not focused on the essential problem, i.e., they talked about peace, freedom, and love, as people on the left like to do, instead of subversion of our government and failure to exploit diplomatic opportunities. In Vietnam, our government was subverted by elements behind the murder of Jack Kennedy, identified by Jim Garrison - an historical repetition of Abe Lincoln's murder - , and did not seize the opportunity to make Ho Chi Minh as southeast Asian Tito. As to Iraq, our government was subverted by the Israel Lobby and we failed to take advantage of the Saudi peace plan. Now we have Jeff Blankfort, who is on the left, and clearly understands what's up. He so clearly understands what's up that anybody on the left or right can benefit from his formidable essay. Every patriotic American must understand what Mr. Blankfort is saying. If you cannot read the works of Paul Findley, especially his latest edition of They Dare Speak Out, read Blankfort's essay, which is an excellent teaser, a short course for those who have not the time to read Findley's scholarship. Nobody wants to be called anti-Semitic. Nobody wants to be targeted by the Israel Lobby. Everybody is petrified to undertake his patriotic duty of learning what is going on, because the truth is so unpleasant, and then doing something rational and effective to address the problem we have. The war is over. Fine. Now we must win the peace. And the problem existing before the war still exists. - J. R. G.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From Andrew Hanos, Australia

Michael Neuman has a nice name and a nice counter-intelligence that is the classic sign that we are dealing here with someone of potential genius. He also has a way of formulating something cleanly and logically. His logic on the way to solve the present Middle East wound is faultless. Logic and clear thinking are not traditionally seen as actions, nevertheless they are or should be it precursors. When something so poisonously complex is reduced with so simple and effective an antidote available to all of us to act upon, perhaps the Jews have finally got their Messiah. Please don't crucify this one!

Andrew Hanos
 
--------------------------------
From Jeff Blankfort:

I have responded personally to both Miriam and Elias, but please allow me to do so to them and to a wider audience. (See below):

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

> From Elias Davidsson in Iceland:
>
> I read with interest Jeffrey Blankfort's article, " The Israel Lobby and the
> Left: Uneasy Questions". I have some problems with the arguments advanced by
> Jeff.
>
> First, the fact that some people decry as antisemitism any allegation that
> "Jews control the US" isn't the issue. Surely some will do so. The question
> is not whether this charge is antisemitism, but whether the charge is true.

For years, I accepted without a second-thought that the allegations of Jewish control of this or that sector of society was a continuation of a long history of baseless anti-semitic canards. What I have come to see after more than three decades in struggling for Palestinian rights, mostly within what is generally considered "the Left," that on key issues involving Israel and Palestine, the debate and the policy, in every sector of society, is dominated by Jews, from those who are fiercely Zionist to those who are anti-Zionist, but insist on what has become a specious argument, that being Jewish does not necessarily mean Zionist. The latter is true, of course, but since it is obvious that the majority of Jews support Israel as a Jewish state, that makes them, regardless of the level of their activity in behalf of Israel, Zionists.

Consequently, when I write that Jews control the media, a fact that is easily proven simply by looking at the various media organizations and who controls them which I have done (and have on my computer for any who are interested), it is logical that in issues involving Israel and Palestine, they will be looking out for Israel's interests. And the proof of the pudding is available at any given moment whether it is on your movie screen or front page. To prove that there are exceptions, I would appreciate any of my critics or supporters sending me evidence that the $1 billion plus $ 8 billion in loan guarantees for Israel, which was included in the $80 billion appropriation for the war, was reported in any American newspaper. Since I have not seen it, I assume that such an important fact being left out was just another proof of Jewish control of the media, not that it will change the minds of those whose was made up long ago. Moreover, the fact that on two occasions, an Israeli delegation was in Washington, discussing Israel's economic demands was also excluded from the papers of record. And was there anything sadder than to see the great actor Marlon Brando forced to beg forgiveness from the Lords of Hollywood for having identified them as Jews and having gone on to criticize some their horrible wares?

> Second, the designation "Jews" is vague. What is meant by this designation?
> All people who in some form or other are Jewish by descent, confession, faith
> or organisation ? Some of them, and if so who ?

What is meant by Jews is all of those, the majority of whom are Zionists of one degree or another, a passive Zionist being a Jew who accepts with questioning the legitimacy of Israel as a predominantly Jewish state.

> Third, in order to prove "control" the traditional method is to infer it from
> circumstantical evidence. But such a method has been used by others to
> demonstrate that it is the military-industrial complex that rules Washington,
> to mention another candidate.

Two more examples. Congresswoman Barbara Lee from Oakland/Berkeley can be the lone vote against the war and then one of 21 House members to vote against the war appropriation, but not once, but twice she voted for a resolution praising Israel for the election of Sharon and for its "democratic values." Does she truly support Sharon or is this yet one more proof that it takes more courage to criticize Israel in the halls of Congress than it does the President of the United States. If that isn't a demonstration of the lobby's power, any other further argument I would make is a waste of time.

As far as the military-industrial complex goes, and it goes very far. Some of its leading CEO's (presumably non-Jewish) have been recruited into the ranks of JINSA, the Jewish Inst. for National Security Affairs) whose mission statement posits a US controlled Middle East with Israel playing a central role, but one Egyptian-born Israeli and now naturalized American, Haim Saban gave almost as much ($12 million) to the Democrats last year as all the military defense PACs gave to both parties ($14 million). (See www.opensecrets.org under Communications). I am at the moment doing research on an article that will indicate that if the Democratic party was a corporation, the Israel lobby would be the majority owner.

> There is, in addition, something utterly illogical in concluding - beside all
> questions of factual evidence - that a cabal of "Jews" would factually
> overrule the formidable power of the numerous non-Jewish millionaires and
> billionaires. To make such presumption is simply not plausible. If the most
> wealthy strata of the US were not well served by the efforts of the "Jewish
> lobby", they would have long intervened and fanned antisemitism. It appears
> that the "Jewish lobby" serves them very well.

Elias, I have written you before that according to the Mother Jones list of the 400 leading individual contributors to both political parties, eight out of the top ten are Jews , 13 out of the top 20, and so on down the line. The numerous non-Jewish millionaires and billionaires simply don't contribute as much as individuals as both Mother Jones and Open Secrets' lists shows. While most of the time the interests of "the Jewish lobby" coincides with that of other sectors of our capitalist society, when the two have clashed, such as over agricultural issues, the lobby has won. The other industries don't have the troops. (What I neglected to send to Israel for his list is a short sidebar that went with the story that described the components of the lobby. It is unique.)

> In my opinion the Jewish lobby is left to act as it does because its agenda
> fits perfectly the imperial agenda of the US. Such imperial agenda reflects
> not the view of one person or group but the convergence of multiple interest
> groups, the arms industry, oil industry, coca cola, pharmaceutical, Microsoft,
> the "Israel lobby" and many others. This is how politics are made.

Given, the lobby isn't the only operative force, but perhaps, you, Elias, can answer the question as to why it is permissible to speak publicly about these other lobbies but to speak of Jewish power is taboo? And that is the point of my article.

And now on to the next response.

> Elias Davidsson
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> From Henry Noble
>
> Other than that I'd say it in terms of Class, I absolutely agree with Elias.
> Does the placing of Powell father and son and Rice in the Bush administration
> prove an African American usurpation of power?

I can't seriously believe an intelligent person would compare the obvious placement of Powell and Rice in the the administrations with the manifest presence of Jews in the halls of power which even the Israeli press finds remarkable.

> Here in Seattle, we've run into a nest of vipers associated with KKK'er David
> Duke who carry signs with the message "No Wars for Israel" and have a website
> with the same name that's full of lists of which Jews are in seats of power.
> As though that proves the Jewish conspiracy. Good grief.
> Henry Noble

This is an issue that, of course, will attract folks who seize upon Israel's manifest misdeeds to pursue their own anti-semitic agenda. But while I abhor David Duke, he is hardly in the class of Ariel Sharon and the unindicted war criminals who run Israel, and he has done far less harm than those in Congress and the White House, or in the offices of the major Jewish organizations who have supported Israel to the bloody hilt and were their any applicable standards of justice, would be viewed as accessories to war crimes.

As to the slogan, "No War for Israel," that is what I had written on a large banner at the time of the first Gulf War which was only approved after AIPAC's careful manipulations, designed to disguise Israel's interest in having that war. This was reported at the time in the Washington Jewish Week and by Benjamin Ginsberg in his "The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State." And can anyone forget that arch Zionist and pathological liar Tom Lantos, who helped to create the phony story of the incubators that Iraqi soldiers had allegedly stolen from a Kuwaiti hospital after throwing the babies within on the floor. The report of that "incident" is what switched the needed anti-war votes in the Senate to vote for war. And in this war, there should be no question about it, unless you think Perle, Wolfowitz. Feith, Wurmser, Bolton, etc. are Irish.

Next.

>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> From Dr. Jo Tavener
>
> Regarding Blankcroft's article on the Israel Lobby, it seems to me that
> Said's book on media coverage of islam says alot about the time it has
> taken for the left to come around to a more vocal and adamant
> pro-palestinian and anti-zionist view. In any event, the strength of the
> Israeli lobby, though important, seems to be the foundation of an argument
> - an argument never made clear in the article.

I was limited to 5000 words and my point was to illustrate the failure of the left. One part that didn't make it was how Ari Fleischer, yes, the president noxious mouthpiece, addressed an AIPAC sponsored meeting of college students who were gathered to learn how they could oppose campus campaigns to divest from Israel.

> Furthermore, it is important to realize that there are a number of vocal
> palestine solidarity groups in the US now - I'm a member of one in Pittsburgh.
> As an American Jew it has taken me time to come around to this anti-zionist
> position. I know my reasons - none of them has been clarified in this article
> though Said's stuff on Islamic media representations has. Mostly, I think it
> was an issue for my feminism. I never really supported the notion of a jewish
> state. In any case, last Spring's demonstration in Washington against the war
> et al. has a very strong pro-palestinian contingent. The word is getting out
> despite the Lobby - so....what's going on. This article says nothing that
> can illuminate this growing solidarity. Besides Michael Tarazi, counsel for
> the PLO, who was here recently, kept telling us that the Lobby wasn't so
> organized and powerful as most thought.

No movement for liberation has been so badly led as has been the Palestinian movement. If Michael Tarazi said that he only proves my point. The pro-Palestinian organizations blindly supported the PLO despite the visible signs of its deep corruption which I saw for myself when I went to Lebanon in 1983. From 1988 to 1995 I edited the Middle East Labor Bulletin which was the only publication dealing with the issues of Palestinian workers and going beyond the issues of Palestinians simply as victims. When I reported that the editor of Al-Fajr, a Jerusalem -based Palestinian paper that was historically the voice of Arafat and Fatah, carried an editorial criticizing corruption within the PLO and welcoming input from its readers, the PLO office at the UN refused to allow me to place the magazine on the literature tables at the annual UN meeting on the Question of Palestine to which I was accredited. That wasn't as bad as what happened to he paper. Arafat had it put out of business. So whatever some PLO or PA spokesperson has to say doesn't impress me, nor does it impress any of my Palestinian friends.

> Anyway, the point now is to stand in solidarity, to stop the US from
> sending military aid ( I was against embargo of Iraq and I am against
> economic embargo of Israel - and guess who would suffer most!) and
> convince those not involved in actively supporting Israel to reconsider.

Why should the US give any aid at all to Israel? And if you are not for economic sanctions against Israel what contribution are you making to producing justice for the Palestinians, if that is your goal. The situation in Iraq and Israel aren't comparable. Why not try Israel and South Africa? Did you support the sanctions against that apartheid state and if you did why that one and not Israel? And who would suffer most? Certainly, not the Palestinians.

Here is what Nehemia Stressler wrote in Ha'aretz on May 12, 1989:

"Without the American veto, we would long been expelled from every international organization not to speak of the UN, which would have imposed sanctions on us that would have totally paralyzed Israel's international trade, since we cannot exist without importing raw materials.

"For the same reason, it is wrong to divide the American money up into military aid of $1.8 billion and civilian aid of $1.2 billion. What we are getting is really unmarked dollar bills...."

At this point in time, with Israel's oppressive actions against the Palestinians proceeding at a gallop, with its' deliberately targeting members of the ISM in order to discourage witnesses to whatever enormities the Judeo-Nazis who run the government are planning in the future, to oppose sanctions against that miserable regime is , in essence, to become a member of that significant grouping of Jewish activists engaged in "damage control" for Israel (whether consciously or unconsciously is immaterial) who have penetrated the Palestinian support movement over the years and succeeded in neutralizing it. In other words, it is unacceptable.

Next.

>
> Sincerely,
> Dr. Jo Tavener
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> From Miriam Reik, New York
>
> I like Jeff and respect his opinions, but I am tired of his jumping all over
> Chomsky, who has done singular service in drawing people's attention to US
> imperialism. That doesn't absolve Chomsky from criticism, but it requires at
> least fair play:"

Since whenever I have raised the issue of the Israel lobby, I have invariably been told that "Chomsky says......" one cannot avoid criticizing him if one wishes to engage the subject. He is a public figure, identified with a theory as Marx was identified with his. In 1991, after he and I had an exchange in the old National Guardian newspaper, a mutual friend wrote to Chomsky suggesting that he and I debate the role of the Israel lobby as the Socialist Scholars Conference that year. Chomsky wrote back, declining, writing that "It wouldn't be useful. When through an intermediary I asked Phyllis Bennis to do the same earlier this year, her reply was the same

> 1) If you want to criticize a person's opinion, don't keep quoting what he
> said 10 or 15 years ago: the things he said may have been true then and are no
> longer (in this case, the Jewish lobby has, in fact, become far stronger in
> that period). He may have changed his mind - fair play, Jeff!

If one has read or heard much Chomsky, it will be noted that he says the same thing in the same words over and over, and on this issue there is no exception. Except, it gets worse. In the Fateful Triangle (1983), he made at least two references to the power of the lobby but these seemed to have ceased by 1991 when he made the speech in Berkeley which began my article. However, one of my three references ot his writings was taken from his introduction to The New Intifada (2001) which was so historically disingenuous ( a polite word) and manipulative that I had envisioned writing a critique simply of that article. Example of what is pure nonsense: "There is an illusion that the (first) Bush Administration took a harsh line toward Israel. The truth is closer to the opposite." Chomsky, ignoring the arguments against such a position that I mentioned in my article, uses a secondary source, Jimmy Carter, that the former president wrote in 2000 in the Washington Post, regarding the first Baker Plan in 1989. Two pages later he refers to the "US-Israel settlement program" as if it was US policy and the policy of the first Bush administration to increase Jewish settlements. That statement is fundamentally dishonest and flies in the face of the facts that I presented in my article. I would be very happy to debate Chomsky again on this entire subject. And I think it would be useful.

> 2) Arguing the importance of the Jewish lobby is important - but since foreign
> policy is not always (perhaps never) determined by one consideration alone, it
> is probably more worthwhile trying to evaluate the extent of the influence of
> others things and undermine them, such as the idea that Israel is a useful cop
> on the beat. If you are afraid to argue that we don't need Israel as a cop on
> the beat because it MIGHT support Chomsky's position, you have become a less
> useful advocate for Palestinians.

Israel has never been the cop on the beat for the US and that's what I tried to show, given the space limitations, in my article. What it has done in terms of its wars it has done for itself. At best it has provided a useful foil for Arab regimes who criticize Israel publicly while colluding with it under the table . Finally, I don't have to make a case for my history of advocacy of the Palestinians

Jeff

Next.

>
> Best,
> Miriam
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> Martin Kessler, Miami:
>
> Neumann says: If someone knows of a way to get Israel out of the occupied
> territories faster, let's hear it. Good grief! You mean you - Michael
> Neuman - learned student of the Arab-Israeli conflict - cannot think of a way
> to end the conflict? I can tell you a million ways, but how's this for
> starters:
>
> Have all Arab nations recognize the existence of the state of Israel and sign
> a peace treaty and welcome all bona fide Arabs into "The Arab Nation", where
> this or that government will graciously make the accommodation and put an end
> to this madness born of intense mortification as a result of getting their ass
> whipped 5 times! That's a downright dirty shame! Should never have happened
> but for bigotry and prejudice..
>
> "They" - and you know who I mean - are not going to get "driven into the sea"
> or get on a boat and go back where they came from anymore then American
> Negroes can be driven or shipped back to Africa, much to the consternation of
> the American KKK. Get it? See the parallel, or do I need to draw a picture. [
> Sorry, I do not mean to be insolent, but for heaven's sake will the visceral
> Jew haters please shut up and leave the scene so honest people can work to end
> the conflict much to the delight of all the involved combatants !]
>
> That's a course of action, Michael; not talk, talk, talk! Stupid talk!
> martin Kessler
> mdk4130@aol.com

I cannot resist replying to this, although it is directed to Michael, it might as well be directed at me, as well. Black Americans came here as slaves, some to become slaves of Southern Jewish slave holders, maybe after having arrived on ships owned by Jewish slave traders who had gone into that business in Brazil and Curacao after being expelled from Spain. The overwhelming number of Jews who came to America, of course, were neither and I would not have even raised that issue if Kessler had not made that ridiculous comparison. The Jews who came here, came her by choice. A bit of a difference between that and coming in the hold of a slave ship.

But I will guarantee you that if the future of Israel unfolds as it has, those Israelis who maintain a sense of decency will find life in Israel suffocating as life in any fascist state must come to be. Because that is the direction in which Israel is heading.

What Kessler seems to be advocating is let Jews like him do it, or rather, do the Palestinians in. Take a hike, chum.

Jeff Blankfort


 

Home