Lazare on The Israel Lobby

I'm a little confused at how it is that I've wound up in some kind of blog feud with Jewcy's Michael Weiss but he seems to regard Daniel Lazare's somewhat negative review of Walt & Mearsheimer's The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy as some kind of knock-down refutation of my views. But I liked Lazare's review! The only observation I would make is that since Lazare is writing for The Nation he's simply taking the Nation line on the occupation of the Palestinian Territories (namely that it's immoral and contrary to American interests and, contrary to what you often hear, by no means wholly the fault of Yasser Arafat) for granted.

That's appropriate in context but it winds up obscuring the fact that Lazare (and I, and Daniel Levy, MJ Rosenberg etc.) are in agreement with Mearsheimer and Walt about a matter of substantial importance even though we all (like, I imagine, almost all liberals) don't accept the broad Mearsheimer/Walt "realist" perspective or the entirety of its analysis. I believe I've said in the past that it's treatment of the Syria issue, in particular, seems badly wrong.

That said, the point on which Lazare I agree with Walt and Measheimer -- that the sort of policies the "Israel lobby" has pushed the United States to adopt vis-à-vis the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are neither morally correct nor conducive to America's interests -- is a very important one, and what I've repeatedly sought to do is defend them from critics from the right who prefer to evade that point with insinuations of anti-semitism. In this regard, it's worth commending Martin Kramer, who's made a real effort in this article and elsewhere to argue on the merits (unconvincingly, in my view, but it's a real argument that I ought to engage substantively in the future) that the close US-Israel alliance does, in fact, serve American interests.

At any rate, I'm a bit confused about what Weiss' beef with me is exactly, or why he doesn't think Josh Marshall is Jewish, but I guess those are matters for another day.

Comments

a Catfight!

goody.

Posted by mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari | October 19, 2007 7:07 PM

So his article seems to me to be "If Matt likes Walt and Measheimer so much why does he marry them and have littel realist babies who disregard human rigths violations!"

Posted by Rob | October 19, 2007 7:10 PM

Michael Weiss does a gorgeous triple-axel.

Posted by Sangfroid826 | October 19, 2007 7:27 PM

"why he doesn't think Josh Marshall is Jewish"

With his recent election as Pope of the Jews, Alan Dershowitz is now able to excommunicate folks from the tribe without any recourse being available.

I'm actually pretty surprised that Dershowitz's Papal bull on JMM from earlier this month hasn't received bigger notice in the blogosphere.

(Marshall has been considering joining up with the Sufis or Mormons in response.)

Posted by Petey | October 19, 2007 7:31 PM

That said, the point on which Lazare I agree with Walt and Measheimer -- that the sort of policies the "Israel lobby" has pushed the United States to adopt vis-à-vis the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are neither morally correct nor conducive to America's interests -- is a very important one . . .

I've been known to lob an anti-semitism charge from time to time, but let me try to hang a lantern on that particular problem. Matt divides the analysis of an alliance into two categories: (1) moral correctness and (2) alignment with America's interests.

Assuming arguendo that US policies toward the Israeli government are not "morally correct," I think it's basically beyond dispute that this is not a problem unique to US-Israel relations. Our positions toward Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, etc. would probably not pass a rigorous moral correctness test. But there is not a well-spring of sentiment from Matt (that I can detect) for radically altering our relations with those nations. Why?

Presumably because those alliances are "conducive to American interests" and our policy toward Israel is manifestly not. Assuming again that Walt & Mearsheimer & Yglesias & Lazare are right about that, I think it is worthwhile to inquire why supporting Israel's moral outrages is deleterious to our interests while supporting the Saudi and Pakistani goverments is helpful. To me, the incandescently obvious answer is that Israel is the least popular kid at the lunch table in the middle east.

Other middle eastern countries orient their policy around a deep-seated opposition to Israel that, it seems to me, does not flow from any rational estimation of their interests. And that phenomenon, I think, is indeed explained by the widespread distaste for Jews in middle eastern political culture. All of which is why I worry that the Walt & Mearsheimer argument ratifies anti-semitism with a wink and a nod, even if it does not directly espouse the animus.

Posted by southpaw | October 19, 2007 8:03 PM

Daniel Lazare's got a valid point: "America will remain in its infantilized state as long as it tries to shift blame for its ills onto foreigners and their domestic agents. It will never solve its problems until it realizes that they originate entirely at home. "
------------
That true. If we let our national leaders send 3700 of our soldiers to their deaths in order to pander to an Israeli billionaire who dumps $15 Million into our elections, then the fault lies with us.

If we let our leaders give DUAL US citizenship to said Israeli -- even though he makes clear his undying loyalty to Israel and even after his Saban Center leads us into a disasterous war with false claims re Saddam's WMDS -- then the fault lies with us.

If our narrowly owned news media disseminates a massive amount of false information in order to help Bush lie us into an unnecessary war which has crippled 30,000 US soldiers -- some for life --and we tolerate that then the fault lies with us.

If our national leaders who try to speak up for the national interest are repeatedly stabbed in the back in a vicious manner by the Israel Lobby -- while members of that Lobby smirk and claim there is no Lobby -- then we are at fault if we don't tolerate that.

If a group in our society repeatedly inflicts massive harm on this country, is indifferent to that harm, and shows no remorse for the consequences of their deceit -- then we are at fault if we tolerate that.

If we nominate Hillary Clinton for President --given how she whores for Haim Saban -- then we deserve to lose.

Posted by Don Williams | October 19, 2007 8:03 PM

Noam Chomsky -the original self-loathing Jew- didn't exactly shower the authors with praise.

Posted by Monty | October 19, 2007 8:04 PM

Correction: "while members of that Lobby smirk and claim there is no Lobby -- then we are at fault if we don't tolerate that." should read

"while members of that Lobby smirk and claim there is no Lobby -- then we are at fault if we DO tolerate that."

Posted by Don Williams | October 19, 2007 8:05 PM

or why he doesn't think Josh Marshall is Jewish, but I guess those are matters for another day.

Nothing against JMM, no doubt a top notch reporter and blogging pioneer, but maybe to avoid this type of confusion in the future, we should trade him and, say, perhaps, David Brooks, for Sam Rosenfeld and a non-Jewish Shapiro to be named later?

Posted by SoCalJustice | October 19, 2007 8:09 PM

I think Matt is missing the real force of the left critique of Mearsheimer and Walt (as articulated not just by Lazare but also Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein). The issue is power and who dominates. Mearsheimer and Walt make it sound like the Israeli government and its American fellow travelers are the dominant partners in the US-Israel relation, and the US foreign policy elite go along with what Israel and Lobby want. This is absurd. A small country can never dominate a superpower in that way. America is the dominant power and they support Israel because Israel is a good attack dog for keeping the Arabs in line. It’s noteworthy that American support for Israel dates to the period when it was starting to prove itself as a military power (starting in the early 1960s but really picking up after 1967, when Israel won a major victory). Distracted and demoralized by Viet Nam, the American foreign policy elite needed Israel to be its neighborhood enforcer in the Middle East. That is the role Israel has had ever since. Lazare is right: American’s have to take responsibility for what their own country does. Blaming foreign bogey-men and the Israel lobby hardly addresses the core issue of what the United States is doing in the Middle East.

Posted by Jeet Heer | October 19, 2007 8:20 PM

I took a moment to finish reading Daniel Lazare's article. I think both he -- and Mearsheimer/Walt -- fail to address why our country is in such deep trouble. It simple:

Money.

The Israel Lobby would not have its influence if not for the massive amounts of money it dumps into elections. That is why it can aid --or destroy -- US politicans.

Similarly, Bush would not have provoked the Sept 11 by selling Sharon 52 F16 jet fighters in June 2001 --after Sharon had used other F16s to bomb the Palestinians -- if F16 maker Lockheed Martin did not dump massive amounts of money into Republican politics , as well as having Lynne Cheney on their Board of Directors from 1994 to 2001.

We would not be spending roughly $38 per gallon for Middle Eastern gasoline -- while spending almost nothing on Energy research -- if NOT for the malign effects of political donations from Big Oil and Big Defense.

Our national discourse would not be permeated with such deceit -- with the moral equivalent of treason -- if not for the baleful effects of money.

So the correct approach to analyzing these matters is simple: Follow the money. See who owns what -- or should I say , Whom?

And point out SPECIFICALLY how that corruption is killing Americans every day. And will kill millions more by plunging our many of our citizens into deep poverty with no health care.

Posted by Don Williams | October 19, 2007 8:28 PM

Exactly at what point did "the Lobby" go completely off the rails?

Posted by Garuda | October 19, 2007 8:28 PM

You soft pedal, once again, the Walt-Mearheimer thesis, which is not that, as you "that the sort of policies the 'Israel lobby' has pushed the United States to adopt vis-à-vis the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are neither morally correct nor conducive to America's interests."

It is that the "Israel Lobby" has forced bad policies onto the United States that the United States knows is against its interest but wouldn't adopt except for the "Israel Lobby"

The argument that you say they make is a debate worth having. Too bad that's not the argument Walt and Mearsheimer are making.

Posted by Just another Apikores | October 19, 2007 8:57 PM

Re Jeet Heer's comment "The issue is power and who dominates. Mearsheimer and Walt make it sound like the Israeli government and its American fellow travelers are the dominant partners in the US-Israel relation, and the US foreign policy elite go along with what Israel and Lobby want. This is absurd. A small country can never dominate a superpower in that way. "
-------------
The power of the Israel Lobby lies NOT with the Government of Israel -- it lies with a few US billionaires who are strong supporters of Israel -- for various reasons -- and who dump MILLIONS into US elections.

Some of those billionaires are not Jewish. William Kristol and his Weekly Standard have lived off Rupert Murdoch for years. No one beat the drums for the Iraq war louder -- and more effectively -- than Rupert's Fox News. Part of William Kristol's influence lies with the frequent face time that Fox TV gives him.

Similarly, Neocon Richard Perle's long time sugar daddy, Canadian billionaire Conrad Black, is not Jewish. Although Mr Black's influence will lessen as he spends years in prison.

Conversely, there are a number of Jewish billionaires who make no obvious attempt to influence US policy for Israel's benefit.

On the other hand, the MILLIONS dumped into US elections by people like Haim Saban, S Daniel Abraham, and Sheldon Adelson are obvious.

Some leftist Israelis are frustrated that those billionaires also dump tons of money into ISRAELI elections --often in support of Likud -- and into taking over ISRAELI news media. See
http://www.forward.com/articles/11408/

At $20 BILLION plus , Las Vegas casino owner Sheldon Adelson's fortune is particularly impressive.
See http://politics.lasvegassun.com/2007/10/sheldon-adelson.html and
http://www.lvcitylife.com/articles/2007/09/13/news/local_news/iq_16626256.txt

By the way, where is Senator Harry Reid from?
Heh heh

Posted by Don Williams | October 19, 2007 9:02 PM

As I read it, Walt/Mearsheimer are simply claiming "the Lobby" has too much influence on US foreign policy and its influence is detrimental to both Israel and US interests.

Posted by Monty | October 19, 2007 9:07 PM

Those superrich US billionaires think they know what is best for Israel.

Whether Israel would agree is an interesting question -- a question that those arrogant billionaires feel no need to ask.

And which the Government of Israel -- ANY Government of Israel -- knows damm well better than to answer.

Posted by Don Williams | October 19, 2007 9:07 PM

A small country can never dominate a superpower in that way. America is the dominant power and they support Israel because Israel is a good attack dog for keeping the Arabs in line. It’s noteworthy that American support for Israel dates to the period when it was starting to prove itself as a military power (starting in the early 1960s but really picking up after 1967, when Israel won a major victory). Distracted and demoralized by Viet Nam, the American foreign policy elite needed Israel to be its neighborhood enforcer in the Middle East. That is the role Israel has had ever since.

As somebody who has lots of disagreements with the Mearsheimer-Walt thesis, I actually think M&W are strongest on this point: whatever the strategic benefits of the US-Israeli relationship, they disappeared with the end of the Cold War. In their response to their critics,
Walt & Mearsheimer write:

"As for the claim that Israel is the instrument by which the United States dominates the region, the fact is that the United States has never been able to use Israel as a base for projecting power in the region. As we noted in our article, the United States could not station military forces in Israel when the Iranian Revolution in 1979 raised serious concerns about the security of Persian Gulf oil supplies. Instead, Washington had to create its own “Rapid Deployment Force.”
Furthermore, the United States could not deploy forces out of Israel in either the first war against Iraq (1991) or the second one (2003). Also, it is hard to see how Israel’s military might works to America’s advantage. The two wars
against Iraq show that Israel must remain on the sidelines in any war that the United States fights in the Middle East. And even when the Israelis fight by themselves, they often fight ineffectively and damage America’s position in the
region. For example, the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 was a debacle, as was Israel’s recent war in Lebanon."

Posted by Peter H | October 19, 2007 9:38 PM

I agree with Peter H.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | October 19, 2007 9:43 PM

Does it really take only $15 million to swing the US election and get all your policies enacted, Don? Heck, Mitt Romney wipes his ass with dollars like that and he won't even get himself elected.

Posted by Steve | October 19, 2007 9:48 PM

In response to Peter H. (and Matt's concurrence with Peter H.) --

The crucial question is, "what is America's strategic goal in the Middle East." Being reasonable liberals, I think you'd say it's insuring a steady flow of oil and keeping the region from being dominanated by any outside power, like Russia or China. All of which are activities America can accomplish without supporting Israel or invading Iraq.

But not everyone thinks that way. I think there is a powerful strand of thought that believes the goal of the United States should be to prevent the Islamic oil nations from uniting in a nationalist bloc. And in order to keep this from happening, the American government needs a strong Israel (to keep the fear of God in allies like Egypt and Saudi Arabia). The classic imperial goal of dividing and conquering, inhereted from the British, is the cornerstone of American foreign policy.

And Israel fits into that overall policy. In some ways, what makes Israel an ideal ally is that it's so radically alien to the other countries in the region: that means that Israel will always have to rely on the United States: it's the perfect ally, having no other alternative and always needing to be ready to fight its neighbors. The same is true of the Saudi ruling class; they have to stick with America, because any alternative would mean losing their social power (and likely their lives). So America's domination of the region requires it to ally itself to regimes that have a strong military but are unpopular or have a weak popular base. These are the best allies America can have.

I think liberals really misunderstand these issues because they don't like to think about 1)the role of social class (in the case of Saudi Arabia) or 2) the fact that the strategic interests of the United States could be opposed national aspirations of Arabs and Muslims.

Posted by Jeet Heer | October 19, 2007 10:58 PM

The last little bit should read: 2) the fact that the strategic interests of the United States could be opposed to the national aspirations of Arabs and Muslims.

Posted by Jeet Heer | October 19, 2007 11:01 PM

And the Rapid Deployment Force became CentCom in short order; which needed Saudi bases, that Richard Clarke secretly negotiated for. These bases, of course, are the argument behind Osama's call for jihad. Because he was dissapointed that
his band of brothers, weren't allowed to blow themselves up against Saddam's army for 8-10 years. Mind you it would have caused the destruction of most of the Wahhabi instructional infrastructure. then again. . .there's really no downside.

On the broader point of realism; one really can't give it much moral sanction. In Turkey in the 20s
it caused us to ignore the Itijihad's campaign against the Armenians and to a lesser extent the
Kurds. In Felix Arabia, it allied us to theSauds
and their Ilkwan retainers. In Iraq, it allied us the increasingly deranged Sunni tribal overclass.
In Germany there's the Holocaust to consider; and the impunity rendered upon its perpetrators with
the Gehlen Org, project Paperclip et al. In Japan, the zaibatsus were reformed as keiretsu;
Class A war criminals; Sasagawa, Kodama, Kishi
were rehabilitated to form the LDP; some of the
more eccentric projects like Unit 731 and the participation of Japanese princes in war crimes
was whitewashed due to commerical interests. Compared to that any faults that Israel may have committed in the course of defending itself against an increasing nihilist sectarian foe are
almost an oversight.

Posted by narciso | October 19, 2007 11:29 PM

FWIW, next time Matt (or any of you) is presented with an argument of this type, he should look into the history of AIPAC. It originally emerged as a successor to the traditionally Democractic or socialist post-war Jewish political groups. AIPAC was formed in reaction to the "Reagan Revolution", lest Israeli influence be lost in a Republican administration(?). Here's the interesting part: AIPAC's first real political significance was not in the U.S. but Israel: Shamir used AIPAC's political clout to cut off Peres. Henceforth, the AIPAC has not really advocated for Israel, per se, but for Likud. I can't be bothered to source all this, but a little research would confirm all of it.

Posted by foolishmortal | October 20, 2007 1:26 AM

FWIW, next time Matt (or any of you) is presented with an argument of this type, he should look into the history of AIPAC. It originally emerged as a successor to the traditionally Democractic or socialist post-war Jewish political groups. AIPAC was formed in reaction to the "Reagan Revolution", lest Israeli influence be lost in a Republican administration(?). Here's the interesting part: AIPAC's first real political significance was not in the U.S. but Israel: Shamir used AIPAC's political clout to cut off Peres. Henceforth, the AIPAC has not really advocated for Israel, per se, but for Likud. I can't be bothered to source all this, but a little research would confirm all of it.

Posted by foolishmortal | October 20, 2007 1:35 AM

Sorry about that, the blogging software claimed a missing email, but apparently didn't believe itself.

Posted by foolishmortal | October 20, 2007 1:39 AM

"But there is not a well-spring of sentiment from Matt (that I can detect) for radically altering our relations with those nations. Why?"

For two reasons: 1) those nations didn't push us into Iraq and are not pushing us into Iran now; granted, this has nothing to do with the "moral" argument, but it does indicate where certain priorities need to be focused;

and 2) it's impossible to get Matt to make a specific statement about ANY ME nation, including Israel as far as I can tell.

It's certainly been impossible to get him to say anything specific about Iran.

There's something about being a "pundit" - or in Matt's case, "wannabe pundit" - that apparently involves babbling incessantly but never actually stating a specific opinion that might come back to haunt you later.

I guess he learned that when he came down on the side of supporting the Iraq war - and then, of course, was totally wrong.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 20, 2007 4:27 AM

For those who don't know, AIPAC was formed by an individual who was working for something called the Jewish Agency, which was a Israeli quasi-government body which funneled large sums of money into pro-Israel and Jewish organizations.

You'll find the story here:

Where Did AIPAC Come From?
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/gsmith.php?articleid=11727

Money quotes:

"AIPAC was founded by Isaiah L. "Si" Kenen, springing from the American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs. Kenen registered twice with the U.S. Department of Justice under the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) as a foreign agent for Israel.[i] On April 21, 1947 he registered as an agent of the American Section of the Jewish Agency for Israel.[ii] Si Kenen also registered at FARA as an agent for the "Israel Information Services" on October 12, 1948 through May 13, 1951.[iii] Kenen changed the committee's name from the American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in 1959, to better reflect that it, according to him, "raised its funds from both Zionists and non-Zionists..."[iv]"

"The Israel lobbying campaign for favorable public relations and media coverage included strategically directed gifts and grants to U.S. colleges and universities for new Israel-centric "Middle East Studies" departments and unfettered lobbying with tax-exempt funds recycled from overseas into the U.S. political system. Activity reports from this intensive campaign are documented in the first chapter..."

"It is popularly believed that the immense power of the Israel lobby sprang from broad grassroots commitment by concerned individuals across America. However, evidence from internal American Zionist Council and AIPAC documents reveals a different history. Many groups, including Christian religious organizations now highly active in AIPAC-directed affairs, were initially indifferent to or even suspicious of Israeli initiatives. It took millions of dollars of Israeli government and overseas funds and decades of effort to create the public relations, lobbying, and political juggernaut that now dominates in America..."

"The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations dove headlong into questions about whether the American Zionist Council, AIPAC, the Jewish Agency and Si Kenen were avoiding Foreign Agents Registration Act declarations or filing false ones, acting as unlawful conduits to launder tax-exempt funds, and illegally disseminating Israeli government propaganda in the United States. This investigation, conducted by Senator James William Fulbright, provides the first outside glimpse into the American Zionist Committee, Si Kenen and AIPAC."

Check it out.

AIPAC was in essence created and funded by the Israeli government through a quasi-governmental body intended to promote pro-Israeli attitudes overseas, especially in the US.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 20, 2007 4:41 AM

By the way, Chomsky would not disagree that the Israel Lobby is significant. He simply doesn't buy that it's more powerful than the oil companies, the military-industrial complex, etc., etc. - in other words, the basic nature of the US state.

On this I agree with him. However, there is a near-perfect alignment between the Zionists and the neocons in ideology and intentions. And they WERE the ones who came up with the plan to invade Iraq and other countries in the ME. M&W establish that quite clearly.

There is NO evidence that specific individuals in the oil companies or the military-industrial complex specifically produced the plans that Bush and the neocons initiated within days of Bush's taking office to attack Iraq.

There IS evidence as M&W present that specific individuals in the neocon and Zionist crowd produced these plans and intentions.

It is IRRELEVANT to the M&W argument whether Chomsky's overriding argument is correct or not, except that IF the people that Chomsky blames for US foreign policy decisions did NOT want to go to war with Iraq, then the Israeli Lobby probably could not have forced the US to do so.

But that is completely irrelevant, because those people DID want to go to war with Iraq. There was therefore a "perfect storm" of agreement between the Zionists, the neocons, the oil companies, and the military-industrial complex and other war profiteers.

Focusing on the Israel Lobby alone as a sole factor is incorrect. But M&W do not do that. They merely state that had the Israel Lobby not lobbied for the Iraq war, it would not have happened. In their original article, they state:

"Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical. Some Americans believe that this was a war for oil, but there is hardly any direct evidence to support this claim. Instead, the war was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure."

This in my view is completely incorrect. The primary reason for the war was to seize the Iraqi oil fields (and if Greg Palast's research is correct, to take Iraqi oil OFF the market), remake Iraq into a puppet state, and then march on to Iran, Syria, and perhaps other states in the ME.

That this would make Israel more secure is a given. But it is doubtful that Dick Cheney is someone who supports Jewish security to that degree.

No, the motivation was money and power. But we can hardly expect two "foreign policy realists" to state that, now can we? That would give the game of state away completely, and they'd be in even worse trouble than being considered "anti-Semitic."

The reality is both M&W and Chomsky are correct - M&W in the narrow and Chomsky in the large.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 20, 2007 5:04 AM

"Presumably because those alliances are "conducive to American interests" and our policy toward Israel is manifestly not. Assuming again that Walt & Mearsheimer & Yglesias & Lazare are right about that, I think it is worthwhile to inquire why supporting Israel's moral outrages is deleterious to our interests while supporting the Saudi and Pakistani goverments is helpful. To me, the incandescently obvious answer is that Israel is the least popular kid at the lunch table in the middle east."

You're assuming that all three of these people, two realists and one liberal, support our policies towards Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. At least in the stark, amoral world of realism, there are two reasons based on the national interest to support Riyadh and Islamabad (playing Devil's Advocate here): to ensure the steady flow of oil and to prevent the collapse of the Pakistani state and thus its nukes falling into the wrong hands. What benefit do we get from supporting Likudnik policies, Bush-style (thinking a show of force on Israel's part will end the fight once and for all, which never seems to work), in the Palestinian Territories and thus de facto supporting the occupation? Doing so is morally wrong, it undermines Israeli democratic domestic preferences (which point towards getting the hell out) and damages our credibility and our national interest.

Posted by Reality Man | October 20, 2007 5:05 AM

southpaw : to be fair to Matt he's commented quite regularly on the insanity and moral dubiousness affecting US policy wrt Saudi and Pakistan.

The difference is more that the dynamic of discussion in the wider world around those countries is dominated by the GWOT narrative (and disinformation about the realities of Saudi and Pakistani connections with militant Sunni Islam) and the drumbeat over Iran.

Also, there simply isn't the media presence who exist to defend Saudi/Pakistan that there is for defending the AIPAC view of things.

Posted by Meh | October 20, 2007 6:08 AM

Josh mentioned "ethnic paranoia in NYC" as a driver in the Bomb Iran hysteria. Only a Jew could say that.

Posted by bob h | October 20, 2007 7:32 AM

I never got the whole 'America and Israel' have the same interests line. We don't. Israel has nothing to offer us at all. They can't possibly survive without our economic and military assistance. Yet they refuse to acknowledge these two basic facts

Saudi Arabia is different because it actually has something to offer us. You see, there's this substance called oil that's vital to our national economy and that forms the basis for most of our current technology.

Thats why you can't compare Saidi Arabia to Israel. They both end up causing us problems with terrorism, but we actually get something out of one of them. The other is just takes and takes from us, while never giving us anything of value.

Posted by Soullite | October 20, 2007 9:05 AM

Wow, Chomsky virtually wipes his ass off with W&M in that article.

Talk about a dose of real,hardcore realism.

Posted by Ron | October 20, 2007 9:15 AM

The non-knowledge that Marshall was Jewish was apparently a repeat of a similar mistake made by Andrew Sullivan. Marshall is usually a non-Jewish name (John Marshall, George Marshall, Thurgood Marshall), but "Joshua Micah" was always a pretty good clue to this Marshall's ethnic and religious background.

Posted by James Kabala | October 20, 2007 10:30 AM

Posted by: southpaw
>>>>>>>>>>>

You do realize how worn out your..."others are worse" and "Johnny dose it too Mommie" defense of Israel is don't you.

Posted by Main Street American | October 20, 2007 10:53 AM

Posted by: southpaw
>>>>>>>>>>>

You do realize how worn out your..."others are worse" and "Johnny does it too Mommie" defense of Israel is don't you.

Posted by Main Street American | October 20, 2007 10:54 AM

Matt,
Your views would seem more reasonable if you didn't write as if Israel was acting in a vacume. In the world of the Matt Yglesias blog , Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the PFLP don't really exist let alone Fatah. In the end, the conflict in MY world is all Israel's fault not the contrant brainwashing instilled hatred Palestinian leaders give to their children. Not the constant rejection of peace as documented by Bill Clinton and Dennis Ross.

Posted by Matt | October 20, 2007 11:06 AM

W&M are right.

Fact One: Assets
Israel is not an asset to the US and is in fact a libility.

Fact Two: Morality
Israel and their US supporters have no claim to any moral justification for support of Israel. Lebanon was the finishing touch on that.
Israel is nothing but another terrorist state and it's supporters in the US would be labeled traitors if we ever get around to updating our antiquated treason laws to counter the tactic of foreign "loyalist" peverting our own democratic tools of representation to use against the interest of majority America in favor of their foreign country.

Posted by Renfro | October 20, 2007 11:15 AM

Matt, if you want to talk about living in a vaccuum, maybe you might want to consider that out of a planet of five billion people your version of the history of Palestine is adhered to by a plurality of Jews, redneck American whites, and that's it.

There is a reason for that and it doesn't have much to do with anti-semitism.

Posted by Ed Marshall | October 20, 2007 11:22 AM

RE Steve's comment "Does it really take only $15 million to swing the US election and get all your policies enacted, Don? "
----------------
As I noted in an earlier post, it only took Sheldon Adelson and AIPAC about $1.2 Million to overthrow long time Congresswomen Cynthia McKinney in Georgia and replace her with a complete unknown with no political experience. Because Cynthia could only raise $600,000 in her poor district.

EVERY other Member of Congress is equally vulnerable to a plutocrat's attack and damm well knows it. Congress claims the right to be all-powerful -- to totally control 300 million Americans with NO restraint. It does so by confiscating our own earnings to use against us.

But that same Congress is a pack of cowardly curs which has to constantly beg for money while living in constant fear that they will offend some rich man who will ruin their career in the next election. You can't become a Member of Congress without betraying your constitutents and whoring for several wealthy interests.

The writers of the Constitution set it up that way. The Constitutional Convention here in Philadelphia was set up under the pretence of settling interstate trade, but after its attendees were sworn to secrecy it became a conspiracy to overthrow the American Revolution and to set up a disguised mechanism to safeguard the wealth/power of rich men. Look at Aedanus Burke's notes on the "Second Revolution".

The situation is even worse today. Around 1800, each Congressman represented about 4000 people and was accountable to those people. But Congress has kept the size of the House constant while the population exploded in growth. Today, a Congressman represents about 600,000 voters -- which means he is accountable only to his campaign donors.

In 1800, people exchanged information via their church, letters, and a wide variety of small newspapers. Today, millions of idiots are spoon-fed their opinions by mass media -- by Rush Limbaugh's radio and the closely owned TV networks.

The lies goes unchallenged because those who know the truth have NO way to disseminate it to 300 million people. Freedom of the press is meaningful only if you are rich enough to own one.

Your Congressman isn't accountable to you -- he's accountable to people on the other side of the country who will sink his career in the next election with a barrage of negetive TV ads if he crosses them.

Someone asked the other day why there were so many negative comments against public schools and public school teachers. Maybe it is because of the lies they tell us about the "American Democracy".

Posted by Don Williams | October 20, 2007 12:31 PM

McKinney lost because thousands of Republicans came out to vote in the primary, following her lunatic claims that Bush and his financiers knew about 9/11 before-hand.

Posted by David | October 20, 2007 1:16 PM

There should be some Godwin's law against
extrapolating from McKinney to any other
congressman whatsoever.

Posted by DJ | October 20, 2007 2:36 PM

I'm not a 9/11 Truther--that is, I think Al Qaeda hijacked planes and slammed them into the WTC and the Pentagon on Sept. 11 and I do not take seriously claims that there were explosives in the buildings, it was the US or Israel etc....

That said, there's a fine line between crazed conspiracy theory and sensible skepticism of official stories, and so it doesn't seem completely crazy to me to wonder if some people in the US government knew more we'll ever be told about what might be coming. I'm not saying I believe it--just that I wouldn't put all conspiracy theories into the same category as utterly unworthy of notice.

Posted by Donald | October 20, 2007 4:19 PM

Donald is right.

You don't need remote-controlled airplanes, or pre-planted demolitions in the Towers to believe that, with all the warnings the US government received in advance of 9/11 from both domestic and international intelligence sources, that somebody did know it was going to happen and ALLOWED it to happen for their own purposes.

And the amount of interference in the response plans that were in place for such an emergency clearly indicate that that is what happened. And you wouldn't need many people to make that happen - a tiny handful would suffice - and even they wouldn't necessarily know why they were ordered to do what they did. The whole thing could have been with one guy at the top and a couple associates who knew the real score.

And if anybody knew, Cheney knew. Cheney was the lynch pin in this. And we all know Cheney is an utterly ruthless asshole who wouldn't blink at letting 3,000 US citizens die so he can get his way.

Now, as to who initiated the 9/11 scenario, my money is on Mossad. They have the infiltrators in Al Qaeda, they could have planted the concept, and they definitely were following the hijackers around in the months before 9/11. They HAD to know what was going down. And they didn't issue a clear warning even when they warned the US a couple weeks before the hit. And they were ready to FILM the event when it happened.

Israel knew. Cheney knew. Who else knew is a matter of conjecture.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 20, 2007 8:06 PM

Who else knew is a matter of conjecture.

The two other obvious candidates: Dr. Phil and Deepak Chopra.

Think about it: channeling the ever-popular, Raimondo-esque "cui bono?" theory, no one had more to gain from a massive terrorist attack on U.S. soil than the "self-help"/healing industry, and these guys are riding America's post-9/11 collective psychotic breakdown all the way to the bank.

Damn you, Dr. Phil. Damn you to hell.

Posted by SoCalJustice | October 20, 2007 8:35 PM

Hmm. Well, there's a difference between saying that some in the US might have known more than they will admit now, and saying that the US actually instigated 9/11. I don't think Al Qaeda needs to be led into committing terrorist acts. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't be surprised if there are some things about 9/11 that have been covered up, and if we ever find out it'll be many decades down the road.

Posted by Donald | October 20, 2007 9:19 PM

Donald,

I don't think our government, or any blue ribbon panel appointment by our government, is particularly well suited to find out all the details of anything as complex as 9/11, so I would not at all be surprised if there was pertinent information we don't know about it.

If someone knew more than they've let on, hopefully it will come out one day.

But as you said, Al Qaeda doesn't need to be led into committing terrorist attacks (as the attacks on our embassies in Africa and the U.S.S. Cole had already demonstrated).

Posted by SoCalJustice | October 20, 2007 9:42 PM

And I didn't say that Al Qaeda had to be led into conducting any attacks.

I suggested that somebody may have fed this particular plan of attack to Al Qaeda. And there is only one real conduit for that sort of counterintelligence operation - and that is Mossad.

Well, maybe the Pakistani ISI, too - in fact, since Islamists with connections to Al Qaeda supposedly operate inside the ISI, they might be an even better conduit than Mossad. Given that Mohammad Atta supposedly got $100k from an ISI officer shortly before the attack, I'd say there definitely is a connection there.

The reason I mention the Mossad is both their demonstrated connection with the hijackers, and the Mossad agents actions with regard to events on the actual day.

The other reason I mention the Mossad is that they are KNOWN for setting up "false flag" operations against the US and others in order to blame Islamic militants in order to further their goals. The primary known case are bomb attacks against US facilities in Egypt conducted by the Mossad known as the "Lavon Affair" in 1954.

The Mossad also was caught by Palestinian police trying to recruit Palestinians into an "Al Qaeda cell" within the last couple years.

I also didn't say that the US instigated the attacks. I said that somebody LET it happen. And the first and foremost suspect is obviously Dick Cheney, based on sheer personality if nothing else. But his connection with the "training exercises" being run that day which diverted jets which could have responded to the attacks is probably no coincidence.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 20, 2007 11:10 PM

Every time I stoop to looking at the emotional rants offered in commentaries to web pages such as this one, I am always unpleasantly greeted by an inordinate number of antiSemitic remarks.

If intellectual subtlety consists these days of parsing out whether theories about Zionist conspiracies are or are not antiSemitic, count me as your biggest fool.

Posted by Alex | October 21, 2007 9:38 PM