Singled Out?

Gator90 makes an argument here that's worth responding to:

For every word written or spoken about the influence of Cuban-Americans or Armenian-Americans on U.S. politics & policy, (insert gigantic number) are written & spoken about the influence of Jewish Americans. [...] Which is not to say that Jews shouldn't be singled out in this respect. Perhaps they should. (There are certainly valid reasons to think that U.S. policy in the Middle East is more important than the Cuba Embargo or silly resolutions about century-old stuff.) But let's not pretend that they are not singled out. Of course they are, which is why "The Cuba Lobby" and "The Armenia Lobby" are not exactly rocketing up the best-seller lists.

I think this is wrong. The reason The Cuba Lobby and US Foreign Policy isn't flying off the shelves is that it would be so ridiculously banal to write a book with the thesis that the Cuban exile community centered in South Florida is the dominant influence on America's Cuba policy. People say this all the time, in mainstream publications, and nobody bats an eye because it's obviously true. Similarly, all accounts of US policy toward Azerbaijan in the 1990s or congressional attitudes toward the genocide resolution highlight the dominant role played by Armenian-American political pressure in these initiatives. You might write a book or an article about the issue (the Caucuses, Cuba, etc.) but you wouldn't write something with the thesis "there's an influential Cuba Lobby" because that's dull and obvious.

Comments

Well, banal it might be, but if we'd invaded Cuba five years ago, and had lost 3500 troops and well over $1 trillion dollars in a failed occupation against guerrilla resistance, I'd certainly be pretty ticked off at the "Cuban Lobby" and would gladly welcome a book like that...

Posted by RKU | October 23, 2007 6:53 PM

Why might the influence of the Israel lobby receive more attention that the influence of the Cuban lobby or the Armenian lobby?

• Israel is among the highest recipients of U.S. financial and military aid; Cuba and the Armenians are not.
• Israel is by far the highest recipient of U.S. aid, per capita. Cuba and the Armenians are not.
• U.S. policy toward Israel affects our relations with nearby countries that are extremely important to us strategically (that is, with respect to oil). Policy towards Cuba and the Armenians do not.
• Israel is, at best, a semi-democracy, that continues to keep large numbers of people in Bantustans, or really, very large prison camps, and yet, Israel is our ally. Cuba is not our ally, and would not be, regardless of the Cuban lobby. If we do anything at all for Armenians, except fail to recognized the genocide committed against them, I don't know what it is.

Posted by Ken C. | October 23, 2007 7:21 PM

I am not sure if Matt is right about this. Look, one of the reasons this whole debate makes me uncomfortable is that there really is a tradition of nasty, anti-Semitic claims about powerful Jews running the world. And there is also a tradition of double standards-- people condemning all sorts of things but only when Israel or Jews do them and not when other people do them. Finally, there is a tradition of slandering Jews as having dual loyalties.

So it is perfectly plausible to me that some people are inclined to pick on Israel and the Jews, and that for that reason, we may get more discourse on the import of the Isreal lobby than we get on the import of other lobbies.

On the other hand, Fallows may have pointed to the answer to this. Why not expand the discussion to ask whether, with respect to all these ethnic/foreign national lobbies, there is a danger that they may put other interests before American interests, and criticize them on that basis without singling out the Israel lobby. Then we are no longer feeding stereotypes about powerful Jews who are more loyal to the tribe than to the US.

But yeah, if you write a book about the singular threat of the "Israel lobby", I think you are going to be legitimately vulnerable to charges of singling out Jews (or at least a lobby that favors "Jewish" causes).

Posted by Dilan Esper | October 23, 2007 7:26 PM

Yes but our policy towards Israel isn't because of the "Israeli lobby," It's because that's what the vast majority of Americans want.

http://www.pollingreport.com/israel.htm

Cuba, on the other hand, has a majority of Americans favoring lifting the embargo:

http://www.cubanet.org/CNews/y99/nov99/17e16.htm

Yet we don't because of the powerful Cuban lobby and the importance of Florida in presidential elections.

So speaking about the influence of the "Cuba Lobby" actually makes sense, whereas the paranoid obsessions with the "Israel lobby" are just ridiculous. If you took those lobbyists out of the equation, American politicians would still support Israel with the same fervency.

Posted by WinSmith | October 23, 2007 7:30 PM

Also, Gator90 pretends that a claim is being made about the "influence of Jewish Americans." No one is talking about "Jewish Americans"; we're talking about the Israel lobby. It's the ones who want to claim that something anti-Semitic is afoot who would like us to conflate the Israel lobby and Jewish Americans. In fact, the Israel lobby is hardly representative of American Jews, being farther to the right and much more hawkish than most of us (as I am sure Matt has pointed out a million times).

Posted by bobbo | October 23, 2007 7:31 PM

It's a little bit both, no? We don't, AFAIK, arm the Cuban exiles (anymore), or the Armenians. There aren't other obviously important issues (oil) at play. Etc. Honest question: does anyone in Central America or South America care much about our Cuban policy?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | October 23, 2007 7:35 PM

your answer proves the point. Jews are being singled out...and let's stop pretending that when someone says "the israel lobby," the reference is to John Hagee and his Christian Zionists...yes, AIPAC is to the right of the vast majority of American Jews...and their closeness to the Republican party has been a problem since mid 80's when is shifted it position from focusing on Congress to focusing on the administration, leading to it becoming more Republican.

And Walt-Mearsheimer's initial paper did nothing to dissuade people from believing they were talking abotu Jews, not people who like
Israel. In fact, here is what they say in their introduction that the core of the Israel Lobby is American Jews and then in their footnotes, they state the following: "Indeed, the mere existence of the Lobby suggests that unconditional support for Israel is not in the American national interest. If it was, one would not need an organized special interest group to bring it about. But because Israel is a strategic and moral liability, it takes relentless political pressure to keep U.S. support intact." It is not a huge leap from that to arguing that the very fact that Jews lobby for Israel is somehow suspect.

Anyway, Matt and others have repeatedly taken what they want Walt and Mearsheimer's argument to be - that AIPAC and its allies support an agenda that is wrong for both America and Israel. That's legitimate, and an argument that I believe. That's not what Walt and Mearsheimer argue - they argue the AIPAC and its allies are the primary reason for our screwed up middle east policy....that's heading into dangerous territory.

Posted by Just another Apikores | October 23, 2007 8:01 PM

Ken D.
A nitpick to your third point.

Our policy on Cuba affects our relations with Venezuela. So far the oil politics has trumped the latin american socialism politics, but inevitably, the status quo will not last. (I do not, however, pretend to know in which direction the balance may shift)

Posted by Kenny | October 23, 2007 8:18 PM

1) So is the Israeli journal Haaretz Anti-Semitic?
Excerpt from http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=280279&contrassID=2&subContrassID=14&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

"The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history. Two of them, journalists William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, say it's possible. But another journalist, Thomas Friedman (not part of the group), is skeptical "

2) Is Thomas Friedman , a Jewish American reporter at the New York Times, also Anti-Semitic?

"Is the Iraq war the great neoconservative war? It's the war the neoconservatives wanted, Friedman says. It's the war the neoconservatives marketed. Those people had an idea to sell when September 11 came, and they sold it. Oh boy, did they sell it. So this is not a war that the masses demanded. This is a war of an elite. Friedman laughs: I could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened. "

3) Why is it that when I look at the people who did the most to mislead America into a disasterous war, I see the same thing that Haaretz sees: a large number of Jewish Americans? William Kristol. Charles Krauthammner. Richard Perle. Judith Miller. Kenneth Pollack.

Why, five years later, are most of those people PROSPERING?

4) Yes there are other interests involved. Yes, Bush and Cheney had the final word. Yes, there are a number of Jewish Americans who have been strongly critical of the War. Yes, it is wrong to blame Jewish Americans as a group for the acts of the above people.

But Bush/Cheney and the Neocons were not the ones who kneecaped what should have been the Democratic Party's resistance to an unnecessary war.

5) Why ,with the exception of Bob Graham, Nancy Pelosi, and Diane Feinstein, were most Democratic politicans too cowed to even question the White House lies? Why did Jane Harman -- the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee and the one who most failed in her duty of critical oversight -- say that if she needs to know something , she checks with the Middle East policy center set up by Israeli billionaire Haim Saban?

Posted by Don Williams | October 23, 2007 8:26 PM

they argue the AIPAC and its allies are the primary reason for our screwed up middle east policy....that's heading into dangerous territory.

Or, you know, just wrong, like any number of other theories. And less dangerous than the much more popular claim that we're in the middle of WWIII (or IV) and Ahmadinejad is Hitler II (or III).

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | October 23, 2007 8:28 PM

1) How many thousands of AMericans have died from Cuban terrorist attacks in the past decade?
2) How many $Trillions have we lost from a war on "Cuban-fascists" in the past decade?
3) How many of our citizens have died in a war to occupy Cuba in the past decade?

With the exception of Big Oil, I know of NO other lobby that has done more to inflicit death and destruction on America in the past decade.

4) When Fortune lists the three most powerfully lobbies on Capitol Hill, Big Oil and Big Defense are not on the list. Because ,in spite of their massive campaign donations, those lobbies are still vulnerable to retaliation if they overstep what is reasonable.

5) By contrast, there is no effective way to exert counterpressure on a group of billionaires who already have their money in the bank -- vice invested in a company -- and hence have limited vulnerability to federal regulation rulings,etc.
That is what makes people like Haim Saban and S Daniel Abraham so effective. If you are a Congressman, you can't hit back at them when they twist your arm. Even if you nailed them on some crime , they can still do a Marc Rich -- flee to Israeli with their second citizenship and passport.

6) Do Cuban Americans have dual citizenship? If they break the law, can they flee to Cuba and have Castro lobby the President for a pardon on their behalf?

Posted by Don Williams | October 23, 2007 8:38 PM

1) Have we alienated our allies by repeatedly issuing UN vetos to protect Cuba?

2) Have we given Cuba over $93 Billion in past aid. $3 billion EVERY year in ongoing aid?

3) Have we given Cuba the largest collection of F16 jet fighters outside the US Air FOrce? Do we have Cuba constantly attacking 4 million refugees?

4) Have we stood by and done nothing while Cuba builds nuclear bombs and threatens the rest of South America?

The only influence the Cuban American lobby has is that most Americans don't give a shit what our policy toward Cuba is -- because it doesn't affect us. The same is not true of our support for Israel.

5) So why are defenders of the Israel Lobby trying to mislead us with this false analogy?

Posted by Don Williams | October 23, 2007 8:45 PM

I think that we've established that Matt is semi-anti-Semitic.

Posted by John Emerson | October 23, 2007 8:47 PM

1) "Jews" are not being "singled out". Zionists and their supporters are. And when I say "Zionists", I don't mean guys like MJ Rosenberg. I mean guys like Netanyahu and Richard Perle.

2) "If you took those lobbyists out of the equation, American politicians would still support Israel with the same fervency."

No, they would not. The influence of the Israel Lobby is not merely in opinions, it is in direct campaign contributions, plus the ability to label any politician they don't like "anti-Semitic".

If you took the Cuban Lobby away, who would care about Cuba on the Hill? A couple guys from Florida, maybe.

Also, the Israel Lobby has spent decades, since the early 1950's, cultivating support for Israel throughout the United States culture. See the article I referenced in earlier threads about that. This was a calculated long term plan executed by Israel's government to produce this level of support in the United States and elsewhere.

3) "But yeah, if you write a book about the singular threat of the "Israel lobby", I think you are going to be legitimately vulnerable to charges of singling out Jews (or at least a lobby that favors "Jewish" causes)."

Yeah, and if you write a book about the "Cuban Lobby", you're going to be "legitimately vulnerable to charges of singling out Cubans."

So your point is that anybody who writes a book about a lobby has to write about ALL the lobbies at once - even if they couldn't care less about the foreign policy implications of a given specific lobby?

That's simply stupid.

And you justify it by saying the authors have to be cognizant of the fact that anti-Semitism exists? That's even more stupid.

M&W explicitly said that "American Jews" have nothing to do with this in the large. What is involved is a specific set of groups and individuals who have the wherewithal to promote policies (allegedly) favorable to Israel. Nothing they have said has ANYTHING to do with being "anti-Semitic" or "singling out Jews" except in terms of the consequences to US ME policy.

What HAS happened is that people who defend the policies of the Zionists and neocons have resorted to charges of anti-Semitism to avoid dealing with the primary issues raised by M&W.

That's it. Period. End of story.

All this "well, gee, M&W *might* be anti-Semitic because *some* people are anti-Semitic, and *some* people accuse *some* Jews of having dual loyalties" is just code words for being too gutless to accuse them directly of being "anti-Semitic" and being too gutless to deal with the actual demonstrated influence of the Israel Lobby that they illustrate repeatedly in the original article and the book - and from other sources as well.

M&W may well be wrong in their perceptions of just HOW influential the Israel Lobby is vis-a-vis other lobbies on US ME foreign policy, such as the oil companies or the military-industrial complex, or whoever, but that has no demonstrable connection with "anti-Semitism."

If they are wrong in that perception, it might lead one to conclude that they are "anti-Semitic". But absent any other evidence of anti-Semitic intent, this conclusion is simply ridiculous.

Produce one clear anti-Semitic statement from M&W or shut up. It's that simple.

And, no, hiding behind the "well, they don't actually say it, they just hint it" is just bullshit.

Prove it or fuck off.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 23, 2007 8:51 PM

It's like, the ultimate argument of Zionists is:

"You're so good at being anti-Semitic that we can't even demonstrate that you're anti-Semitic."

Great argument.

I'll buy that for a dollar.

Meanwhile, the counter argument the Zionists use is: no matter what Israel does that looks like Nazi Germany, it really isn't, because they are absolutely never guilty of anything. Jews and Israel have never, ever, in the history of the ethnicity or the country, ever done anything wrong, individually or collectively.

And yet THAT is NOT being "singled out".

You can be "singled out" for criticism, but you can NEVER be "singled out" for praise.

Intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy doesn't get any deeper than this.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 23, 2007 8:58 PM

Yes but our policy towards Israel isn't because of the "Israeli lobby," It's because that's what the vast majority of Americans want.
And public opinion, as we all know, exists in a vacuum and is not at all susceptible to influence by, say, lobbying groups. I know I've never heard of a lobbying group doing public relations. Why, that would just be silly.

Posted by Minipundit | October 23, 2007 9:05 PM

The Cuban lobby has carved out special rights that apply only to Cubans. The idea that people in Cuba are allowed to stay here if they get to shore while thousands of Haitians and Dominicans are either sent to camps or shipped back to their native countries quickly has always struck me as unfair and arbitrary. The Cuban community in South Florida claims to value the freedom they enjoy in America but they have a sense of entitlement about their little corner of the United States. In short, they think they own the place. There have been state workers who have been harrassed and even fired for not speaking Spanish. It's odd that we tolerate that kind of behavior simply because Cubans are so powerful and Florida is such an important swing state in National elections.

Posted by ny nick | October 23, 2007 9:33 PM

I think the main difference is that the Armenian and Cuban lobbies aren't calling for US policies that are anywhere near as expensive in blood and treasure.

The Cuban lobby just wants us to keep up the embargo on Cuba. That's relatively passive and easy on our part. Little sacrifice for us, other than Cuban-Americans who'd like to visit more and do more for their families and don't support the embargo.

The Armenian lobby has had their genocide bill shot down for decades, and again this year. Their lobbying efforts don't really account for much.

The Israel lobby? There's simply no comparison. Protecting Israel is a major expense on our part, even in peacetime, much greater than our expenditures serving the Cuban and Armenian lobbies.

It's not that the non-Israel lobbies can't affect policy, it's that the policies they want are relatively innocuous.

Does anyone seriously believe the Cuban or Armenian lobbies would be able to nudge us towards a significant military confrontation?

Posted by Jon H | October 23, 2007 9:36 PM

Matt,

While I agree that a hypothetical book on the domestic lobbying power of ethnic groups (e.g. Armenians and Cubans)is banal, a book on the Israel lobby is not solely riveting because it is so taboo; but also because Israel receives an extraordinarily undue amount of support from the United States at the expense of its own long-term interests.

First, as Ken C. pointed out, Israel receives an absurd amount of aid. However, more importantly, it receives unfettered diplomatic and legislative deference and support. Daily, on capitol hill especially, we are treated to tongue-lashings and resolutions against entities and countries hostile to Israel. Often times these are people and countries it would be in the U.S. interest to have some diplomatic relations with. But we do not for Israel's sake. On the other hand, nary a single negative utterance against Israel occurs in our conventional political circles (academia is not conventional).

Regarding Dilan's comment, I appreciate the sobriety of your tone. But your insistence on the Israel lobby being just another lobby is wrong. As I said above, nobody receives the amount of political and verbal support that Israel receives despite the trouble it may bring.

Winsmith, you are unfortunately--for you--wrong as well. While the American public is much more in support of Israel than say Cuba, that in no way reflective of an otherwise inconsequential lobby. Quite the opposite, really. The lobby has for some time stifled critical debate of Israel and helped ensure few negative words and images of Israel are broadcast. The result is an American public scarcely familiar with Israel outside of the deferential public dialog on the matter. Thus their conception of Israel is naturally in the country's favor. How could we expect it not be? They rarely--if ever--hear or see Israel portrayed in anything other than a positive light. It would be miraculous if they held views any different than what they do, since it would take a serious outside effort to come to a another conclusion.

Finally, Aipikores, I think its time for you to return to the kids' table for thanksgiving. Playing the slippery slope of if you suggest "Israel is a strategic and moral liability" than your "heading into dangerous territory," is intellectually weak and downright sad. Is considering support for Colombia or China as being "a strategic liability" anti-Hispanic or anti-Asian, respectively? I think not. Time to let the adults talk at the big table, buddy.

Does this mean the Israel Lobby is alone responsible for our ME problems? No. As Matt (although, rather tepidly) and others have pointed out, geo-strategic decisions and American racism (our hatred of towel-heads) contribute significantly as well.

Posted by jeff | October 23, 2007 9:52 PM

My theory is that a certain part of American elite believes that militarization and xenophobia are good for the nation, but it requires some convincing causes. Israel is a godsend to those people, provided it behaves aggresively enough.

So Israel became a pet cause of American wingnuts, "muscular liberals" etc. because those people badly need a pet cause.

Somehow, the posture on ME matters was less extreme in Reagan-Bush Sr. years when our warrior class was busy in Central America or arming against Soviet menace. But now Middle East is the last remaining region where we can rattle our sabers. Perhaps Africa is a possibility too, but it would be a much harder sale.

Posted by piotr | October 23, 2007 9:59 PM

There seem to be two separate points of contention here.

The first is why discussing AIPAC's influence on American policy sells books, but that of similar Cuban or Armenian groups do not. The simplest explanation for this is also the most accurate: people care about our Israel policy more than they do about Cuba or Armenia. Procedural politics (even ethnic procedural politics) just isn't that interesting unless it effects an issue about which people are already passionate.

The second is whether the Israel lobby has some sort of outsized influence on our middle east policy and why (or why not).

It's pretty clear that they do, but the reasons aren't especially pernicious. They support a general thrust of US policy (help Israel) that is highly popular among American citizens. There are multiple reasons for Israel's popularity, but the essential one is that the core supporters of Israel in the US, many of whom are neither Jewish nor neoconservative, have prevailed in the court of public opinion.

The lobby most comparable to AIPAC is the NRA. They both derive their power not so much from targeted donations to politicians, but from the fact that they have helped their side to win public support. It's been clear to politicians for at least 10 years that if the NRA labels you "anti-gun", you are cooked in most districts. Similarly, while many of the posters on this board would happily embrace the label of "anti-zionist", it is a sure road to electoral defeat for a politician. Excessive recourse to the epithet "anti-Semite" has obscured the fact that being anti-Israel is in itself political poison.

The problem for opponents of our support for Israel isn't that they face a uniquely powerful and undemocratic lobby, it's that they keep getting clobbered in the public debate.

Posted by heedless | October 23, 2007 10:13 PM

I find a book with the thesis that there is an influential Israel lobby to be dull and obvious.

Posted by djslippyb | October 23, 2007 10:13 PM

Just to make my priors clear, I'm quite sympathetic to Israel, and I'd like to see American support for her continue.

I'd also like to see progress toward a 2 state solution but experience has taught me to be pessimistic on that score.

Posted by heedess | October 23, 2007 10:22 PM

I heard an anecdote recounted recently about a Senator having an off-the-record conversation and the way it sums up:

He thought our (his public) position on Israel/Palestine was crazy.

He didn't represent any significant number of Jews, the small number he did represent all voted for him and wouldn't vote for the other guy no matter what. If he wanted he could legislate any way he wanted to, and he'd be re-elected over and over again.

His effective political career however would be over, no project he wanted would ever come out of committee and he'd basically be a DC parriah. Israel/Palestine wasn't worth the good work he thought he could get done in Washington, so he just played along. The majority of the Senate pretty much feels the same way.

I'm still trying to figure exactly why that would work, but if it's true either our Senate is comprised of conspiratorial minded anti-semites or the Israeli lobby is in a whole different league, whole different sport, than the Cuban lobby or the like.

Posted by Ed Marshall | October 23, 2007 10:34 PM

I agree with djslippyb: the Walt-Mearsheimer thesis isn't necessarily anti-Semitic, just banal and sloppy. As John R. MacArthur noted in April, Walt and Mearsheimer ignore the existence of the Saudi lobby. For that matter, conspiracy nuts who focus on the allegedly all-powerful Saudi lobby ignore the allegedly all-powerful Israeli lobby and the allegedly all-powerful Cuban expatriot lobby and the allegedly all-powerful Armenian-American lobby. Maybe someone should think comparatively before spouting blather about monolithic political machines?

Posted by Sherman Dorn | October 23, 2007 10:39 PM

I've been fascinated for the last half decade by the fact that the world's most famous living author can't get his last two books published in New York, books that were published in Paris over five years ago ... and almost nobody in the American media ever mentions it.

For excerpts from excerpts from these two books, see:

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2006/10/important-literary-historiographical.html

Posted by Steve Sailer | October 23, 2007 10:43 PM

All this "well, gee, M&W *might* be anti-Semitic because *some* people are anti-Semitic, and *some* people accuse *some* Jews of having dual loyalties" is just code words for being too gutless to accuse them directly of being "anti-Semitic" and being too gutless to deal with the actual demonstrated influence of the Israel Lobby that they illustrate repeatedly in the original article and the book - and from other sources as well.

Richard, the history of anti-semitism matters. We don't write on a clean slate when it comes to arguments that relate to "the Jews". There are still plenty of people in this world who believe the worst things about this particular group, and spread hatred and promote discriminatory treatment against them. And in the fairly recent past, powerful governments wiped a good number of them off the earth while spouting these ideas to persuade their constituents that it was justified.

This doesn't mean we can't talk about the power of the Israel Lobby. Of course it is a legitimate topic of discussion. But it does mean that we have to be careful how we talk about it. Anti-semitism is still a loaded weapon, and we do not want to be, wittingly or unwittingly, providing bigots with ammunition or encouraging them to fire.

As I noted in my post, many people do single out "the Jews", or pro-Jewish interests, or Israel, for double standards. So this is not an idle concern.

So yes, perhaps we won't be able to talk about the Israel Lobby in exactly the way you would like to. If that is so, I'd say that pissing off Richard Hack is a small price to pay to ensure that we don't unintentionally aid the cause of those who would like to turn back the clock to a time when anti-semitism was widely accepted.

Posted by Dilan Esper | October 23, 2007 10:49 PM

The key point is that the Cuban Lobby, like most powerful lobbies, brags about how powerful it is and how if you cross them, you'll never get Florida's electoral votes. Meanwhile the Armenian lobby laments how it's just not quite powerful enough yet, but soon will be.

In contrast, the Israel Lobby insists on Orwellian doublethink -- it brags constantly about how powerful it is (just check out AIPAC's website or read Dana Milbank's account of AIPAC's annual convention), but if anybody _else_ mentions how powerful the Israel Lobby is, well, they're anti-Semites in league with David Duke. The worst thing about the Israel Lobby is how it corrupts discourse in America by demanding doublethink.

Posted by Steve Sailer | October 23, 2007 10:50 PM

...the world's most famous living author...

Nothing against Solzhenitsyn, and I do hope he finds a US publisher soon, but surely you jest.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | October 23, 2007 10:51 PM

The worst thing about the Israeli lobby is that when you disagree with it, they attempt to get you fired, ruin your life, smear you with any mud they can throw and generally are contemptible, nasty, shits while using a pathetic, moral blackmail in the form of Hitler's destruction of Jewry that's so distasteful and low that in the subterrian muck of lobbyists I can't think of any other sort of operation that wouldn't be embarrased by it.

Posted by Ed Marshall | October 23, 2007 11:06 PM

When we compare lobby groups, one has to admit that AIPAC and its neo-con supporters were instrumental in causing us to go to war with Iraq. Were there other reasons for the war other than to make Israel safe? Perhaps, but there is no doubt that goal was one of the major factors. So it seems to me a legitimate query into the power of the Israeli lobby.

One of the strange things I recall about the start of the Iraq war was the silence of some of the Jews who were leaders in peace movement groups. They were conflicted being very much anti-war but knowing that Saddam was a supporter of terrorism in Israel and a potential threat to Israel itself. There was no doubt in their minds that one of the purposes of the war was to protect Israel so they held their tongues and stayed their feet.

If you doubt that AIPAC was urging us to war with Iraq, then get from CSPAN the videos of the AIPAC conference in DC just before the war was launched. Our leaders, Democrat and Republican, bent over backwards assuring the audience to loud cheers that we were going to remove Saddam.

With the Israeli lobby interested in protecting Israel with American troops, it would seem to be a natural thing for Americans to debate this issue honestly and openly and not be cowered by yells of antisemitism. It seems starkly clear there is no other foreign lobby group that is asking us to risk our soldiers lives for the benefit of their country. That my friends, as John McCain used to say, is all the difference in the world.

Posted by Llyonnoc | October 23, 2007 11:11 PM

Heedless: There are multiple reasons for Israel's popularity, but the essential one is that the core supporters of Israel in the US, many of whom are neither Jewish nor neoconservative, have prevailed in the court of public opinion.

This is called "circular reasoning." You start by saying there are multiple reasons for Israel's popularity, and end by saying that Israel is...popular.

Heedless: the core supporters of Israel in the US, many of whom are neither Jewish nor neoconservative,

Uhm, these would be who? The Christian Zionists? You're saying two things here: 1) that the Christian Zionists are THE "core supporters" of Israel here; and 2) that they have convinced everybody else that Israel should be supported - WITHOUT relying on anything the Israel Lobby has done.

Not counting them as "neoconservative" is also something of a technicality. These religious freaks explicitly support the same policies as far as I can tell.

But their long time support for Israel is contradicted by the study of the origins of the Israel Lobby. See:

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

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. However, not all Americans welcomed the formation of Israel's lobby.

If you have any evidence that the Christian Zionist lobby is more powerful than the Israel Lobby specifically at influencing Congressmen to support Israel, and specifically with regard to campaign donations, I'd like to see it.

I'd also like to point out that M&W explicitly recognize the influence of the Christian Zionists. But as I pointed out above, this is a relatively recent phenomena compared to the last fifty years of an explicit Israeli attempt to manufacture unconditional support for Israel in the US.

Howard Berkowitz over at TPM argues that Israel was a strategic asset against the Soviet Union in the ME during the Cold War, and that this explains a lot of US support for them during that period. He may be correct. When the Arab nations were being armed by Russia, and Arab nationalism tinged by Marxism was the cause of the day in the ME, Israel's "democratic", "capitalist" position was easy for the US to support - especially as Americans were ignorant of the whole Israel-Palestinian issue.

Subsequent to the Cold War, and after numerous Palestinian intifidas, that support may still exist to some degree based on inertia among the US population.

But the explicit influence on US elected officials remains a real phenomena, and it transcends that low-level grass roots support Israel may enjoy.

And actions like US Congressman explicitly supporting Israel's war crimes in Lebanon by refusing to call for a cease fire last year - let alone the blatant support for the war in Iraq and the upcoming war in Iran - are not explained by "grass roots" support, when the majority of the US population were in favor of none of that.

Again, if you have evidence that the Christian Zionists are more influential about Israel with the Congress and the public than the Israel Lobby, I'd like to see references.

You might like to see this article on the subject:

Courting and Countering the Christian Zionists
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=13535

The author states that the beginning of the influence of Christian Zionists occurred as far back as the 1970's.

However:

The relationship began as a response to the growing criticism of Israel's human rights policies by mainstream Protestant churches as well as to former president Jimmy Carter's 1977 statement that the Palestinians need a homeland.1 The late Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin was one of the first Israelis to reach out to the US Christian Zionists, and former premier and current Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu has assiduously cultivated these ties.

The latter doesn't sound to me like "no influence" from the Israel Lobby. You can certainly count Netanyahu in the Lobby even if he is not American.

Another point that M&W make in their "Mother Jones" interview is that it's not merely the support for Israel that the Lobby works toward - it's the *unconditional* support that it works toward.

SW: It's not that the Israel lobby is the only thing that shapes American support and American sympathy for Israel. But it shapes the unconditional nature of American support—the fact that our support continues independent of what Israel's policies are. There are a variety of reasons why Americans tend to look favorably on the Jewish state and many of them are ones that I would agree with myself. John and I clearly state that we support Israel's right to exist and we also think that there are admirable features in Israeli society, so that's not really the issue. The point of the lobby is it drives those aspects of U.S. support that aren't in American interests.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 23, 2007 11:15 PM

Ed Marshall:

...either our Senate is comprised of conspiratorial minded anti-semites or....

No, the U.S. Senate is certainly not filled with fanatically Jew-hating anti-Semites.

Yet.

Posted by RKU | October 23, 2007 11:18 PM

bobbo sophistry - Also, Gator90 pretends that a claim is being made about the "influence of Jewish Americans." No one is talking about "Jewish Americans"; we're talking about the Israel lobby. It's the ones who want to claim that something anti-Semitic is afoot who would like us to conflate the Israel lobby and Jewish Americans.

Right, bobbo. Lets apply your "ne average Jew behind it!" argument to the Cuba Lobby.

"No one is talking about "Cuban Americans"; we're talking about the Cuba lobby. It's the ones who want to claim that something anti-Cuban immigrant is afoot who would like us to conflate the Cuban lobby and Cuban Americans."

Well if Cuban-Americans are not the prime movers of the Cuba Lobby, and Jews not driving all the foreign policy tilts and special deals Israel gets, who is?

Perhaps the greatest asset any powerful group could have is ability to stifle criticism and instill fear in the less powerful of career or political damage if they transgress the boundaries of what the powerful will tolerate. Imagine that Wall Street controlled considerable media assets and Congress dedicated to maintaining that it was evil envy, pro-communist, and bigotry to ever criticize CEOs. When anyone who dared question stock options and 8,500 dollar shower curtains was pilloried in media and Congress as a private enterprise hater. Eager for the slaughter of noble executives and vast property holders like happened in the French Revolution Holocaust or the Soviet Holocaust against "the dynamic entrepreneurs".

That is the present power of the Israel Lobby, which in turn masks the far more important Jewish effort on the Left to use Jewish-controlled tools like the ACLU, Human Rights Watch, National Lawyers Guild, certain unions, the Soros Group, NY Times to implement massive cultural and institutional changes to America - many against the expressed will of the people.

Posted by Chris Ford | October 23, 2007 11:30 PM

"Richard, the history of anti-semitism matters."

To whom - and when?

We're talking about Israel here - not German Jews in the 1930's and '40's. We're not talking about pogroms in Europe over the last ten centuries.

We're talking about how Israel came into existence (to the degree that this relevant to the legal status of Israel and the intentions of its founders and supporters), and directly how its policies are affecting US concerns in the ME.

Period.

Just because David Duke has opinions about this issue should not restrict a clear, free discussion of these matters.

This is just more of the same "wink, nudge", "Well, they're anti-Semitic" that is the exact mirror image of the "wink, nudge", "Well, they're Jewish" that you complain of.

Sorry, but no. Slyly accusing M&W of "anti-Semitism" without the SLIGHTEST EVIDENCE other than their criticism of Israel is just unacceptable.

Like I said, put up or shut up. Make the case that there is "anti-Semitism" in anything they say, or stop raising the issue.

And I would also mention that you are ignoring the concept of "New Anti-Semitism". Look it up here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_antisemitism

It's exactly the sort of thing that following your notions will lead to: the concept that ANY criticism of Israel is, ipso facto, "anti-Semitic" because some "anti-Semite" did it sometime in the past.

This is precisely what the critics of M&W are relying on. This is precisely what they intend to use to stifle criticism of Israel.

And bending over backwards to be "sensitive" to the issue of "anti-Semitism" is precisely what the intellectually dishonest Zionists would like to see happen.

It's a "get out of jail free card" for Zionists.

It's exactly what I said above: a double standard that allows Jews to claim to be "singled out" when they are criticized, and at the same time allows them to single themselves out for praise and allowing them to be critical of anyone who criticizes them.

It's a classic case of human "moral blackmail".

It reminds me of the "Devil's Dictionary" that defines anti-Semitism as:

1) Those who hate Jews.

2) Those who are hated by Jews.

Sorry - I cut no slack for Zionists. They are intellectually dishonest, intellectual cowards, and liars.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 23, 2007 11:34 PM

As usual, Ford, a true anti-Semite, gets it wrong.

Cubans are from Cuba - most recently, historically speaking. By definition, they are interested in Cuba. Most of them have relatives there. Many of them might even want to go there and live if the Castro government falls.

Jews are all over over the place. Most of them here in the US did not come from Israel. Most of them, according to polls, really don't feel that much attachment to Israel except in the most general terms. Few of them want to go to Israel and even fewer want to live there.

It's an entirely different situation.

There simply is NO Jewish grassroots support for AIPAC and the Israel Lobby whereas there is clearly a Cuban grassroots support for the Cuban Lobby. And just as there is clearly an American grassroots support for the NRA over the single issue of gun ownership which crosses most demographic, racial and ethnic boundaries.

Ford is an idiot. He thinks Winona Ryder wants to turn the US into...something horrifying for Gentiles...

Moron.

He sounds like a couple TRUE anti-Semites I ran into in the Federal joint. Guys for whom - to paraphase Ed McMahon - "EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD YOU EVER WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT WHAT IS WRONG IS EXPLAINED BY THE JEWISH CONSPIRACY!".

"You are wrong, Manischewitz-breath"

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 23, 2007 11:46 PM

Thanks for the Solzhenitsyn heads up, Steve.

By the way, you might find the book "Bombshell : The Secret Story of America's Unknown Atomic Spy Conspiracy " by Joseph Albright of interest. A very interesting and humane look into the mind of one of Solzhenitsyn's "renegades"

Posted by Don Williams | October 23, 2007 11:51 PM

Look, one of the reasons this whole debate makes me uncomfortable is that there really is a tradition of nasty, anti-Semitic claims about powerful Jews running the world.

I understand that, and the tradition is real (and abominable), but ... that shouldn't be a reason to suppress undeniable (and inoffensive) facts. That way lies madness. The Czarist Secret Police libeled the Jewish people a century ago, so no one should say anything similar about anyone in that ethnic group, even in those cases when it's true? The anti-Semitic tradition is real but arguments built on tenuous guilt-by-association do nothing to undermine it.

Posted by Matt Stevens | October 24, 2007 12:00 AM

The fact that Israel is in a region that is more central to the US in recent times certainly explains a lot of the difference. But one other difference is that the Armenian lobby and the Cuban lobby tend to focus more on behind the scene influence of legislators. There is not the same concern,as far as I can tell, with articles and the like. People who write articles claiming that we should lift the embargo with Cuba might get some anachronistic charges of being soft on communism, but they are unlikely to find that the response to their article is not a discussion of its content, but a debate about whether they have an irrational hatred of Cubans.

I don't know if this is a difference in type, the Israeli lobby goes after things that the other don't, or one of scale, the Israeli lobby gets more attention than the Cuban lobby because it is bigger.

But one thing anyone who writes criticizing Israel has to know, is that more people will hear about their anti-semitism than will actually read their arguments.

Posted by Lon | October 24, 2007 12:08 AM

Richard Steven Hack,

I don't know what your familiarity is with american jews, but while it is true that most jews do not have roots in Israel, you are simply wrong that most jews do not have the kind of attachment to Israel that Cubans-Americans have to Cuba. It does not follow that all american jews support AIPAC, because many consider their policies to be against Israel's interest. And I suspect many Cubans are not crazy about the Cuba lobby which, after all, advocates limited the access of Cubans to their relatives in Cuba in the name of the boycott.

But american jews do tend to feel towards Israel much of what other groups feel towards their actual homelands. This is true even among atheist jews.

Posted by Lon | October 24, 2007 12:13 AM

Re "EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD YOU EVER WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT WHAT IS WRONG IS EXPLAINED BY THE JEWISH CONSPIRACY!".
----------
Not just a "Jewish Conspiracy" but a "LEFTIST Jewish Conspiracy".

Although how William Kristol, Richard Perle, Charles Krauthammer and Paul Wolfowitz became this Leftist Cabal is a point that Chris Ford will no doubt explain to us in time.

Probably it's an example of the well-known , shape-shifting powers of the Anti-Christ.

Posted by Don Williams | October 24, 2007 12:18 AM

I'm really curious about that anecdote I referenced earlier. I believe that was Tony Jundt at the University of Chicago.

I'm a big enough poli-sci geek that I used to play a virtual Senate that was nerd-core enough that they had the details down to securing office space at Dirksen. I wish I had played with it longer because I have this very weak light-bulb glowing that explains why you would get your ass handed to you in the most bi-partisan of fashions for crossing the line on Palestine.

I know that it didn't escape me I'd set up office across the hall from AIPAC. The people officed next to AIPAC had the cherry committee seats, especially the foreign affairs portfolio, democrat or republican. I decided incredibly quickly that I was going to focus on health care reform and no way in hell was I going to even start a conversation on the Middle East with any of these people *especially* within my party.

That was probably five years ago, and I gave up the game shortly after and didn't think about until now. Yeah, it's just a game, but the sort of geek that would play this thing had ambitions to higher office and my guess is a nice chunck of them will be office holders in the future. I know The Atlantic probably isn't the vehicle to ask about the why's on this, but you should kick the idea out to someone who can run with it.

Posted by Ed Marshall | October 24, 2007 12:40 AM

RSH,

I just used core supporters to mean those arguing that America ought to support Israel. The true believers, if you will. I had no particular subset in mind (though given that Jews and your Christian Zionists are each less than 2% of the population, most of Israel's supporters are, by definition, neither) They (we, I suppose) have been very successful in swaying public opinion.

That is the basis of America's support for Israel, which makes it difficult to argue that the "Israel Lobby"'s influence is in some way undemocratic. They support a generally popular set of policies, which is what gives them heavy influence.

You can argue that many of the reasons for Israel's popularity are ill founded, but that does not change the fact that it is popular. As long as that remains true, we will continue to offer support.

Posted by heedless | October 24, 2007 2:42 AM

Thanks to this thread I have spotted a real problem with Walt and Mearsheimer.
If the quote is correct:"Indeed, the mere existence of the Lobby suggests that unconditional support for Israel is not in the American national interest. If it was, one would not need an organized special interest group to bring it about. But because Israel is a strategic and moral liability, it takes relentless political pressure to keep U.S. support intact."

Then both don't understand the simplest things about how the national interest in a pluralistic society is defined. It is defined by the wrangles and compromises of competing groups, many of whom be defined as special interest group. Ask any special interest group and they will tell you that the things they demand are in the national interest.
Walt and Mearsheimer on the other hand seem to think in a predemocratic way about the national interest: It just preexists and should be determined by a disinterested ruling elite without any input of domestics politics. They may be great scholars of international relations but they don't understand how the politics of a pluralistic society works.

Posted by IM | October 24, 2007 4:34 AM

There are twice as many Polish-Americans as Jewish-Americans. Poland has many of the same geographic and strategic components as Israel and similar democratic institutions in sync with US values and interests. I believe Polish-Americans played a key role in education all Americans about communism and the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

So all things being equal is 'the Polish lobby' twice as powerful as 'the Israel lobby'? If things are not equal (geography, strategic interests, economic interests) what exactly is weighing in favor of Israel to make it a disproportionately important ally ahead of Poland -- especially now with a resurgent Russia.

Posted by joejoejoe | October 24, 2007 4:56 AM

"you are simply wrong that most jews do not have the kind of attachment to Israel that Cubans-Americans have to Cuba."

Provide evidence to counter this study:

Study finds U.S. Jews distance selves from Israel
http://www.newsfrombabylon.com/story/2007/study-finds-u-s-jews-distance-selves-from-israel

The study found only 48 percent of U.S. Jews under age 35 believe that Israel's destruction would be a personal tragedy for them, compared to 77 percent of those 65 and older. In addition, only 54 percent of those under the age of 35 are "comfortable with the idea of a Jewish State" as opposed to 81 percent of those 65 and older.

And this report:

U.S. JEWS FOUND MORE WILLING TO CRITICIZE LEADERS OF ISRAEL
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE5DE173DF93AA15757C0A961948260

American Jews are more willing than ever before to criticize the Israeli Government, a survey by the American Jewish Committee has found.

The study noted that some leaders of Jewish groups have argued that criticism of Israel should be confined within the American Jewish ''family'' because public reproaches serve to help Israel's adversaries. But 63 percent of the respondents rejected that view, and only 22 percent agreed.

In a similar survey in 1983, 57 percent felt that Jews should be free to criticize Israel while 31 percent said they should not. The 1986 data on criticism of Israel were also higher than three other surveys the committee has conducted since 1981 in which similar questions were included.

A professor of sociology at Queens College who conducted the 1986 and 1983 studies, Steven M. Cohen, attributed the increase in tolerance to a skepticism of authority by Americans in general. He said skepticism among Americans Jews had been transferred to the Israeli Government.

The survey found that 57 percent of the 1,133 American Jews who responded maintained strong or moderate attachments to Israel and expressed deep concern for the country's welfare. But the number of those whose attachment could be described as ''peripheral'' grew to 43 percent, in contrast to 31 percent in the 1983 survey.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 24, 2007 7:10 AM

Heedless: I just used core supporters to mean those arguing that America ought to support Israel. The true believers, if you will.

It's not clear to me that, despite the general positive attitude toward Israel which probably half the US population expresses in polls, that these are "true believers." It appears more than these are the "ignorant believers" who are expressing attitudes they have derived from popular culture (positive books and movies from the 1950's and 1960's about Israel are cited by a Tikkun article, for example), or from osmosis - just like many still believe Hussein had something to do with 9/11.

I had no particular subset in mind (though given that Jews and your Christian Zionists are each less than 2% of the population, most of Israel's supporters are, by definition, neither)

That would be correct. However, the question is to what degree are the REAL "true believers" - the Jewish population - and more importantly, the actual members of the Israel Lobby - and the Christian Zionists - more influential than what I have termed the "ignorant believers."

That is the basis of America's support for Israel, which makes it difficult to argue that the "Israel Lobby"'s influence is in some way undemocratic. They support a generally popular set of policies, which is what gives them heavy influence.

First of all, nobody - including M&W - has said that the Israel Lobby's actions are "undemocratic" in the sense that they operate differently than other lobbies. M&W have been quite explicit about this.

However, certain elements of the Israel Lobby have engaged in what either is or is close to espionage, and also lobbying as a "foreign agent". Indeed, the founder of AIPAC was registered as the foreign agent of Israel.

Also, the Israel Lobby has relied on money transferred from the Israeli government and contributions from Israeli citizens or wealthy US citizens with dual citizenship or Israeli backgrounds to directly influence US politicians.

"Bribes" ARE "undemocratic." "Campaign contributions" by lobby organizations are in my view "undemocratic". Campaign contributions from corporations are, in my view, "undemocratic."

But the primary issue is that the policies pushed by the Israel Lobby are contrary to the best interests of the United States population. Thus, whether the US population in whole or in part supports these policies really isn't that relevant. The US population supports a variety of policies that are not in its best interests.

But if you want to believe that the US population wholeheartedly supports Israel, and will continue to do so, regardless of how many wars the US gets into, how much taxpayer money is wasted on those wars, and how many US citizens die in those wars - fine with me.

It's called "nature's way of eliminating the stupid."

The bottom line: the Israel Lobby has undue influence in the United States which is contrary to the best interests of the United States - and whether that influence is based on popular support or not really isn't relevant to that fact.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 24, 2007 7:40 AM

Zionists are ethnic bigots and think themselves that they argue on behalf of "Jews", or "Jewish people."

Posted by Bengt Larsson | October 24, 2007 8:50 AM

Richard,

You have me at a disadvantage. My impression of the relationship between jews and Israel comes from interacting with actual jews. This is admittedly less linkable than siting opinion surveys, which, as we all know, always give a solid picture of what is happening in a community.

Do you suppose there is any immigrant group for whom the strength of the attachment to their country of origin does not fall off with the generations? Do you suppose that third generation cuban americans would poll the same as first generation?

Posted by Lon | October 24, 2007 9:24 AM

That is the present power of the Israel Lobby, which in turn masks the far more important Jewish effort on the Left to use Jewish-controlled tools like the ACLU, Human Rights Watch, National Lawyers Guild, certain unions, the Soros Group, NY Times to implement massive cultural and institutional changes to America - many against the expressed will of the people.
Posted by Chris Ford | October 23, 2007 11:30 PM

Well look at that, an old fashioned 19th century style anti-Semite. Wow. You don't see these kinds of things too much anymore. Maybe I can take it to the antiques roadshow and get it appraised. Still, it probably ain't worth much more then when is was made, still worth shitte.

Posted by Northern Observer | October 24, 2007 10:07 AM

Joejoejoe,

With regard to lobbying power, the relevant criteria is not numbers, but numbers of people who will vote primarily on a particular issue. More accurately, the strength of a lobby as such is the ability to create the impression that there are a lot of people out there who will ignore, (or at least devalue) other issues in the name of this one issue.

AIPAC has done a good job of creating that impression, although it may be becoming less accurate as the politics they espouse becomes more extreme. Cubans in Florida and New Jersey have done a good job of creating that impression, although again it is probably declining as Cuban-americans become further removed from their time in Cuba.

What issues with regard to Poland are large blocs of polish-americans likely to ignore their positions on other issues in order to draw the line?

Posted by Lon | October 24, 2007 11:01 AM

As someone who married into a cuban-american family, I'm always amazed to hear talk of the power of the cuban lobby. Seeing images of the US Coast Guard using water cannons to blast cuban refugees off make-shift rafts to prevent them from landing (part of the wet foot/dry foot policy)seems to undercut that thesis.

Posted by cato, jr. | October 24, 2007 11:10 AM

" Walt and Mearsheimer ignore the existence of the Saudi lobby"

The difference is that the Saudis have actual levers they can use against us, ie, oil.

What's Israel going to do if we change our policies? Are they going to force the Organization of Matzoh Producing Countries to cut production? End exports of that alleged Dead Sea salt-based skin moisturizer I see advertised in carts at malls all over the place?

If, instead of being the world's last-founded colonial possession, the piece of land we call Israel were part of Jordan, I don't think we'd give a rat's ass about it. We certainly wouldn't be fighting wars over it.

Posted by Jon H | October 24, 2007 12:54 PM

That is the present power of the Israel Lobby, which in turn masks the far more important Jewish effort on the Left to use Jewish-controlled tools like the ACLU, Human Rights Watch, National Lawyers Guild, certain unions, the Soros Group, NY Times to implement massive cultural and institutional changes to America - many against the expressed will of the people.
Posted by Chris Ford | October 23, 2007 11:30 PM

Well look at that, an old fashioned 19th century style anti-Semite. Wow. You don't see these kinds of things too much anymore. Maybe I can take it to the antiques roadshow and get it appraised. Still, it probably ain't worth much more then when is was made, still worth shitte.
Posted by Northern Observer

Classic Jewish use of the smear and insinuation technique to attempt to belittle any observation of heavy Jewish involvement in communism and various organizations serving as tools of Jewish transnationalism, cosmopolitanism, secular progressivism.

All smears that carefully avoid addressing the facts.

Were over half the members and leaders of the Bolsheviks Communist Jews? The American Communist Party half Jewish? Who owns the NY Times and Washington Post and wanted them to push liberal and Leftist solutions?

Or, is that too, an objective question that is somehow inherently "anti-Semitic" knowing what the answer is?

Who is behind the funding and staffing of Human Rights NGOs like Levy's Doctors Without Borders, Kenneth Roth's Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International. Could that answer be wealthy Jewish financiers like Soros? But wrong, wrong to say so?

The influence on the Left of Jews exceeds their influence on ME policy through the Israel Lobby. Since the 60s, the ACLU has been run by Jewish Executive Directors, (Ayer Neier, Ira Glasser, now Nadine Stroesser) with a majority Jewish National Policy Board, with over 50% of its funding coming from Jewish activists....seeking whenever possible to bypass American democracy for judicial fiat that advances Leftist causes. Where are Neier and Glasser now? Both serving Soros, as his Foundation co-presidents. Code Pink? Jewish organized and funded. NAACP - orginally set up and run by Jewish potentiates from NYC in 1909 and the pattern of Jewish Leftists running the NAACP with black figurehead "shills" up front doing the spokesperson role or the Thurgood Marshall function of fronting lawsuits funded and generated by Jewish Leftists was only broken in the late 60s when blacks seized control away from Jews of all sorts of "negro uplift" groups Jews ran.

It is difficult to be honest and say that the Jewish-American Israel Lobby has significantly damaged American interests....and somehow maintain that the even more powerful, wealthy, and influential Jewish Left is inviolate from criticism. That somehow the massive wealth, legal muscle of Leftist Jews has not had tremendous success forcing America against the will of it's People to transform to Open Borders, help lose Vietnam, deluge the masses with a tide of purient crap from the media industry, force affirmative action, implementing expanded criminal rights and the gay agenda. To have to use PC, embrace multiculti. Create a Cult of Victimhood that all groups playing identity politics can employ.

Sorry, the immunity amulet gained in WWII is old and tarnished. The Jewish Left has overused and abused the "Anti-Semitic smear" just as the Israel Lobby has. Screaming anti-Semitism, Hitlerite!!, McCarthyism as a way to stop all scrutinity has
waned as a force. It didn't work for the Rosenbergs because they were at the beginning of the Era When Jews Could Not Be Criticized Because They Suffered Greatly At Other's Hands..now, it's power to stifle has largely ended in Israel, Europe. And in the US, in growing criticisms of too much Jewish control over institutions, The Israel Lobby's disproportionate power, the Soros and Neocon cabals...

Posted by Chris Ford | October 24, 2007 1:49 PM

Chris Ford threw a lot of shit against the wall in his last post, but he does make a couple of interesting points:

1) Leftist Jews are more influential in pushing their agenda domestically than Neocon Jews are in foreign policy.

2) Liberals -- including liberal Jews like Matt Yglesias -- are quick to 'bravely' scrutinize the Neocon Jewish influence in foreign policy, but are silent about the pervasive influence of leftist Jews domestically.

As Jews, I know that often our first instinct when hearing someone say negative things about Jews is to dismiss them as Jew-haters (which they sometimes are) or to point out that the critics' issue should be with Jews qua Jews, but with Neoconservatism, or Leftism, or whatever movement they oppose, since whatever movement it is, there assuredly are Jews on the opposite side as well. This is all true, but it's hard not to get the sense that the traditional Jewish zeal for the pursuit of Justice got warped somewhere in the last few decades, and it's hard not to be embarrassed by the asshats at the ACLU or Code Pink.

A hundred years ago, Jews following the whole Tikkun Olam/"Justice though the world would be destroyed" thing pursued some worthy causes. Ending the practice of lynching blacks in the Jim Crow South was one that Chris Ford may or may not think was helpful, but as a Paleo, he might appreciate the efforts of Jewish labor leaders like Samuel Gompers, if he knew about them. A hundred years from today though, who will appreciate some of the things Jewish leftists are doing now, that seem driven more by spite for America than any reasonable concept of justice?

Posted by Fred | October 24, 2007 2:32 PM

Tell want you want about Chris Ford, but I wish he were right.

For hundreds of years European were divided in two ways which were almost independent from each other: there were ethnic groups, and there were groups of people who were loyal (or not so loyal) subject of various monarchies.

Then in 19th century a modern idea of a nation emerged, roughly, a triple unity of land, blood and language, or perhaps even a quadruple unity, with religion added as a cherry on top. With this idea around, Jews had a bit of a problem. Initially, there were just two ways: cultivate their own unity or religion, blood and language, in the Exile, so without land, or to join the emerging nations, learning their languages, participating in civic life (another new idea: you could participate in civic life without being a noble). They lived in a land, spoke a language, sometimes even converted to the local religion, but there was still the little matter of blood.

At the end of the century another idea became popular: create the triple unity for Jews, recreate Hebrew as the national language, and regain the land. Jews would be just another normal nation. A different approach would be to oppose the idea that blood and religion should determine who is one of "us" and who is "not". More constructively, it would be joining a movement professing universal values, be it Socialism, human rights, arts for arts sake. Of course, the Jews were not the only adherents of such movements, so many nations had a rough division: ardent nationalists and cosmopolitans. The later were impure, disparaging the ancient wisdom of the blood and religion, associating with Jews etc. Anti-Semitism was about a civil strife within societies, with Jews perforce being on one of the sides.

In USA all movements seeking universal values are accounted as The Left. Zionist project is about triple/quadruple unity and purity, so it should by classified as The Right, which is confusing, as one can be a Zionist who is also a Feminist etc. (the original Zionists were socialists).

Indubitably, this situation allows to see Jews as your opponent regardless whether you count yourself as The Left, or as The Right.

Posted by piotr | October 24, 2007 3:17 PM

To the degree that Chris Ford does anything positive in his posts it is to remind people of the very positive history of western jews, and for the last century American jews, of being at the forefront of many intellectual movements, particularly those that deal with social justice.

Being politically active is not a bad thing. And the mere fact that jews are heavily represented among the neo-conservatives is only embarassing to the degree the neo-conservatives are misguided ideologues and who wants to be associated with misguided ideologues.

To the degree that it becomes problematic it is only if either the method of influence is shutting down debate rather than trying to influence the debate.

Another kind of difference, which I think varies among the supporters of constant war in the middle east, is the degree to which the views are actually factionally based. By this I mean suppose that the the situation in Israel and its immediate surroundings were reversed, and it was jews that were occupied and Arabs that were occupying, and that all of the necessary adjustments to attitudes needed to be made. Jews were using terrorism to fight back. Arabs were leaving jews in inhumane conditions, but not using their full force to ethnically cleanse them, etc.

I assume that all of the jewish critics of Israel would simply be jewish critics of Palestine. I do not believe that someone like Dershowitz though would be leading the defense of the Palestinians rights to defend themselves against Israeli terrorists. I think some of the neo-cons might, but that it is an interesting question as to which ones. So it is to that degree to which support for Israel (or opposition) seems factional. Clearly most of the Arab states would not have the same problem with the behavior of Palestine that they do with Israel. So there is no reason to think that this kind of factionalism is a particularly jewish phenomenon.

Posted by Lon | October 24, 2007 3:51 PM

Interesting assessment, piotr. I'm certainly more in favor of the "cosmopolitan" approach than the "blood/state" approach. And as a Transhumanist, I'm far more interested in "universal values" than "tribal values".

The amusing thing for me is being called "anti-Semitic" and someone who "despises Jews" (by Josh Marshall, explicitly, in an email to me) when I have repeatedly pointed out that as a Transhumanist, I don't have any interest in any ethnic or racial or religious distinctions.

I'm an "equal opportunity bigot" - I don't like humans. I don't like religions. I don't like states. I don't like irrational philosophies.

Being motivated to denounce Jews or any other group of humans just doesn't interest me. You all suck.

Got to hand it to Chris Ford - there's a true "anti-Semite" for you: someone who thinks everybody who is Jewish is somehow in on the "conspiracy" to make life miserable for Gentiles like him.

What part does Winona Ryder play, Chris? Shoplifting?

I repeat - I couldn't care less about Jews. I care - to some minimal extent of correctness - about Zionists threatening the world and particularly this country with endless war just so they can grab some land, water and oil in the ME for some pathetic excuses of religion and previous persecution - while the real reasons are, as usual, greed and power.

And said persecution only occurred because their ancestors spent too much time threatening their neighbors with war two thousand years ago until they got kicked out of their own land by another country that was really good at war.

Then they had the misfortune that one of their people turned traitor, hijacked one of their prophets, and managed to get the Romans to establish a new religion that would persecute them for two thousand years in the name of their own prophet.

I mean, as a Transhumanist, you gotta laugh at how stupid the whole situation really is.

Except these nitwits are getting people killed, and threaten, along with the scumbags in our own country, to destroy the US economy, the US military, and the US geopolitical standing, by getting us involved in endless war in the ME.

Now, if we didn't have scumbags in our own country, they wouldn't matter much. That much is true. Israel and the Israel Lobby wouldn't matter if we didn't have cheap, greedy, power lusting politicians in this country. But we do. So they don't help.

That's all I'm interested in. Again, I couldn't care less about Jews in general. Or Armenians. Or Russians. Or Chinese. Or Persians. Or any other race, ethnicity, or nationality you can name.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 25, 2007 1:56 AM